NationStates Jolt Archive

Speaking and driving are absolutely necessary. Owning a gun is not.

In the past it was and it stuck and we're not going to change it.

LONG LIVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT

I'm incredibly surprised this thread is still going.

I'm in Toronto, and I don't know a single person who lives in Toronto who has any sympathy for gun-owners. I don't want anyone owning a gun in my city. No way. Guns are for cops. Plain and simple.

And if you are convicted of a crime involving a gun, well... I think some extra-added pubishment should go with the rehabiliation process.

But what do I know, I'm a demon-seed Canadian anyway, right?

In the past it was and it stuck and we're not going to change it.

LONG LIVE THE 2ND AMENDMENT
All I'm going to say is this, Corneliu: even if it was, in the past, it serves no harmless purpose now. You aren't living in the past, dude. You're living today. Shouldn't your laws reflect the needs of your people today, and not the needs of some other people from 200+ years ago?

And like they say on the radio up here, 'Live in the past, and get left behind'.

In the past it was and it stuck and we're not going to change it.They don't call 'em conservatives for nothing.

I'm incredibly surprised this thread is still going.

I'm in Toronto, and I don't know a single person who lives in Toronto who has any sympathy for gun-owners. I don't want anyone owning a gun in my city. No way. Guns are for cops. Plain and simple.

And if you are convicted of a crime involving a gun, well... I think some extra-added pubishment should go with the rehabiliation process.

But what do I know, I'm a demon-seed Canadian anyway, right?LONG LIVE TORONTO!

My native city, and my home for 16 wonderfull years.

They don't call 'em conservatives for nothing.

Actually, PA is not a conservative state though some sections are. In PA, we have a lot of hunters and if you take away the guns, they will not be happy. I don't know what the break down is but if you do try to take away the 2nd amendment, there will be a tremendous fight and I will tell you now that the fight to take a way the guns will not succeed at all.

LONG LIVE TORONTO!

My native city, and my home for 16 wonderfull years.
My adopted home these last... oh God, 22 years? Crap man, that's a long damn time.

DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT! and it kills more people than guns ..ban cars before guns.
Speaking and driving are absolutely necessary. Owning a gun is not.

DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT! and it kills more people than guns ..ban cars before guns.Did I say it was a right? I simply said it is necessary, or do you live in an amish village?

Responce in red
I'm incredibly surprised this thread is still going.
a subject near and dear to my heart
I'm in Toronto, and I don't know a single person who lives in Toronto who has any sympathy for gun-owners. I can imagine the crowd you run with and its no suprise. I don't want anyone owning a gun in my city. No way. Guns are for cops. If you call a cop in TO how long before he shows up?Plain and simple.

And if you are convicted of a crime involving a gun, well... I think some extra-added pubishment should go with the rehabiliation process.
See we're no so different we agree on this. Criminals give responceable gun owners a bad name. Use a gun get an extra 10 years cool by me.

But what do I know, I'm a demon-seed Canadian anyway, right?
I like Canadians (mostly)I grew up in the rusty-grey city to the south (Buffalo).
I love TO! Do you listen to cfny and are you going to the X? (do they still have $2.00 beers in the Carlsburg building?)

In most cities you don't need cars they are a luxury or in NYC a burden. You miss my point. Cars kill more people and driving is NOT Constitutionally protected. Why not have more restrictions on cars like nothing over 50 horsepower and 4 cylnders that can only go 35 mph?

Did I say it was a right? I simply said it is necessary, or do you live in an amish village?

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

So, once again, you have no arguement.

Once again, firearms have other uses besides your base generalizations.

Mary Ann Talley returned to her South Los Angeles, Calif., home from a walk to find herself confronted by a burglar armed with a tire iron. Talley retrieved a handgun she kept for protection and shot the suspect, who died the next day. (Monterey Herald, Monterey, Calif., 8/24/05)

Would you rather she be raped and/or killed?

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_getwhat.jpg

Apparently you aren't reading my posts. I'm not going to repeat my argument over and over so you will simply have to back track if you are sincerely interested in what I have to say.

With regards to Mary Ann Talley, I'd rather the government spent more money in rehabilitation programs, public education, work placement programs, skill upgrade programs and less money on the beurocracy of registering handguns, chasing down armed criminals, disarming street gangs and subsidizing arms manufacturers in order to prevent this situation from occuring in the first place.

Or legalise drugs and remove the money to buy blackmarket guns from streetgangs.

But be that as it may...if Mary Ann called the PD they would be putting her in the ground instead of the criminal.

Why don't you answer my question about Dharphor, Rwanda and Bosnia?

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Apparently you aren't reading my posts. I'm not going to repeat my argument over and over so you will simply have to back track if you are sincerely interested in what I have to say.

With regards to Mary Ann Talley, I'd rather the government spent more money in rehabilitation programs, public education, work placement programs, skill upgrade programs and less money on the beurocracy of registering handguns, chasing down armed criminals, disarming street gangs and subsidizing arms manufacturers in order to prevent this situation from occuring in the first place.

They ARE the best form of defense, period, short of energy shields and phasers.

Do you know what happens when ONE guy with a rifle goes to a bank and holds up? They call swat, helos, and every available police officer to that scene. It gets COSTLY. Not to mention the media....Now imagine it x80 million. There are a LOT of gun owners in America, and even if only 1 out of every TEN decided to fight back, you've still got 8 million...and if only 1 out of every 10 of those decided to fight back, that's 800 thousand.....

So are you advocating gun fights between civilians inside banks?

You can have energy shields and phasers, I'll use my wits.

responce in red

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

I'm not going to waste my time cutting and pasting. If you actually want me to respond, write your remarks outside of the quotes.

How does this to gun fights in banks? The bank reference was ment to show what one armed man could do against a government if need be a complete hypothetical answer the real world question about Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia.

So are you advocating gun fights between civilians inside banks?

You can have energy shields and phasers, I'll use my wits.

You are foolish and niave...it is not your enemies you need to fear it people who mearly do not care about you. The serial killer or criminal doesn't hate you, you are simply an object.

I think it's foolish and naive to think increasing the distribution of guns is going to reduce the chances that fire arms are going to fall into the hands of criminals.

With regards to fearing people, I don't fear strangers, unless of course they are drunk and carrying a fire arm. ;)

Were the unarmed citizens of Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia well served by NOT having guns for self defense?




[QUOTE=Unspeakable]responce in red



I'm not going to waste my time cutting and pasting. If you actually want me to respond, write your remarks outside of the quotes.

I don't think anybody advocated the mass distribution of guns, only the legal private ownership and the right to carry it on your person.

So they guy that breaks into your house is your new buddy...Strangers are freindes we haven't met yet? :rolleyes:


I think it's foolish and naive to think increasing the distribution of guns is going to reduce the chances that fire arms are going to fall into the hands of criminals.

With regards to fearing people, I don't fear strangers, unless of course they are drunk and carrying a fire arm. ;)

[QUOTE]Hitler's words and Ted Kennedy's car have killed more people than any of my guns. Should we bar speach and driving?

How many people have Ted Kennedy's car killed?

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." - Adolf Hitler

Oye Oye dies... from laughter.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Apparently you aren't reading my posts. I'm not going to repeat my argument over and over so you will simply have to back track if you are sincerely interested in what I have to say.

With regards to Mary Ann Talley, I'd rather the government spent more money in rehabilitation programs, public education, work placement programs, skill upgrade programs and less money on the beurocracy of registering handguns, chasing down armed criminals, disarming street gangs and subsidizing arms manufacturers in order to prevent this situation from occuring in the first place.

That you're a hoplophobe is not an arguement to ban them

Nice way to avoid the question.

Since you obviously didn't read the post completely, the criminal was armed w/ a tire-iron. Are those to be banned next or just locked up for when they're needed?

How does this to gun fights in banks? The bank reference was ment to show what one armed man could do against a government if need be a complete hypothetical answer the real world question about Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia.

It's a concept known as "moving the goalposts" to avoid commenting on the intent of the statement.

Hitler through words alone killed more people that have been murdered in the whole of US history combined. Should not by your reasoning speach be controled and restricted?
Kennedy used an automobile to murder Mary Jo Kopechny at the Chapaquidick bridge.

Dharphor, Rwanada and Bosnia?


[QUOTE=Unspeakable]

How many people have Ted Kennedy's car killed?

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." - Adolf Hitler

Oye Oye dies... from laughter.

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Were the unarmed citizens of Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia well served by NOT having guns for self defense?

Seeing as how the native Americans, even after aquiring guns, were still wiped out by British invaders, then I don't think it would have prevented the attacks. At best they might have inflicted casualties on the attackers, but then are you interested in prevention or punishment?

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]

How many people have Ted Kennedy's car killed?

"Those who want to live, let them fight, and those who do not want to fight in this world of eternal struggle do not deserve to live." - Adolf Hitler

Oye Oye dies... from laughter.

He also said"

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their fall by doing so."




And since you're entertaining such high quality company, here's some other individuals you might like to invite:

Vladimir Lenin said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Mao Tse-tung said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Were the unarmed citizens of Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia well served by NOT having guns for self defense?

Seeing as how the native Americans, even after aquiring guns, were still wiped out by British invaders, then I don't think it would have prevented the attacks. At best they might have inflicted casualties on the attackers, but then are you interested in prevention or punishment?

Most of the Native Americans (or Injun's as you would say) were wiped out by disease.

Hundreds of thousands of the above Africans were massacred using machetes AFTER they were disarmed by the Gov't.

Thousands of Bosnians were massacred AFTER they were disarmed by the Gov't.


The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif., 10/16/01

A 32-year-old man was shot and killed in North Hollywood when he slashed through a door screen with a knife and threatened to kill everyone inside. The man, identified as Tony Saucedo, allegedly had assaulted his ex-girlfriend in her home. She then ran to a neighbor's home. A witness said Saucedo, knife in hand, began searching for her. He approached the wrong house and was shot once in the chest as he cut through the screen and attempted to force his way inside.


Is your "wit" sharper than his knife?

I don't think anybody advocated the mass distribution of guns, only the legal private ownership and the right to carry it on your person.

Do you think the manufacturing of fire arms should be discontinued?

So they guy that breaks into your house is your new buddy...Strangers are freindes we haven't met yet? :rolleyes:

I met an English teacher from New York. He was new to Colombia and upon initially meeting him we discussed different writers including Gabriel Garcia Marquez. His interest in literature impressed me so I offered to show him around Cali. I planned to take him to a club where I knew some cute waitresses, but on the way he said; "Don't worry if we run into trouble, I know Kung Fu."

I asked him what kind of trouble he was expecting. He replied; "Oh you never know, I guess I'm going to have to find myself a gun so I can protect myself."

In the end I took him to an empty bar and came up with an excuse to leave.

Yes, strangers are friends... until they start acting like assholes.

So are you advocating gun fights between civilians inside banks?

You can have energy shields and phasers, I'll use my wits.

WTF? Between civilians? Between a civilian who is in fear of his/her life and a bank-robber? As much as I want it to not happen, if the citizen is in imminent danger and in fear of his life, blast away!

Indians were never armed on a even remotely even level to either the Brits or the US Army. When they were, look what happened, Little Big Horn.

Had ther not been a UN SANTIONED army embargo the Bosnians would have been able to fight back and prevent the ethnic cleasing.

If you say otherwise you are being intelectually dishonest.

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Were the unarmed citizens of Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia well served by NOT having guns for self defense?

Seeing as how the native Americans, even after aquiring guns, were still wiped out by British invaders, then I don't think it would have prevented the attacks. At best they might have inflicted casualties on the attackers, but then are you interested in prevention or punishment?

Responce in red
Yeah, ditto on the response format, there Unspeakable. I'll respond to your question regarding summoning police in the heart of Toronto-Centre-Rosedale, the chunk of the downtown core where I live:

If it is a call regarding a violent crime, the elapsed time form making the call to the arrival of the cops clocks in at under sixty seconds. The usual practice is to keep the caller on the phone until the officers arrive, though. It's never been longer than a minute's wait time. And it's hardly a surprise; Toronto boasts, per capita, the second largest police force by population (or so it has been bandied about, alternately proudly or disgustedly, depending on your point-of-view vis-a-vis municipal politics). I've had to call the police to report about six incidents in the last five years. I have yet to be disappointed.

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

That you're a hoplophobe is not an arguement to ban them

Nice way to avoid the question.

Since you obviously didn't read the post completely, the criminal was armed w/ a tire-iron. Are those to be banned next or just locked up for when they're needed?

What is the purpose of a tire iron?

P.S. you can label me all you want. I am not afraid of weapons and have fired guns before. I have also been around gun collectors and hunters and know what kind of idiots they are from personal experience. I know people who argue as ardently as you regarding gun control then go to their cottages, with their shotguns and a case full of beer. I've been on these expeditions, I know what goes on, this is why I protest.

Yes, strangers are friends... until they start acting like assholes.


The Union, San Diego, CA, 9/26/89

Timothy Dimasi's 13-year-old daughter heard men talking outside her El Cajon, Calif., home in the early morning hours, and she woke her father. The homeowner armed himself with a rifle, and upon entering the girl's room he saw a man climbing in the window. Dimasi opened fire, killing the intruder; a second suspect escaped.

And these guys just wanted to ask the daughter out on a date, right?

I think that obsolete guns should no longer be manufactured.

First off if the guy was going drinking and wanted to carry a piece then I would agree he was an asshole. Alcohol and guns never ever mix..unless you are sober and shooting at empties.


Do you think the manufacturing of fire arms should be discontinued?



I met an English teacher from New York. He was new to Colombia and upon initially meeting him we discussed different writers including Gabriel Garcia Marquez. His interest in literature impressed me so I offered to show him around Cali. I planned to take him to a club where I knew some cute waitresses, but on the way he said; "Don't worry if we run into trouble, I know Kung Fu."

I asked him what kind of trouble he was expecting. He replied; "Oh you never know, I guess I'm going to have to find myself a gun so I can protect myself."

In the end I took him to an empty bar and came up with an excuse to leave.

Yes, strangers are friends... until they start acting like assholes.

I will address the flaws in this article if you can provide me with a source (other than "Guns and Ammo" magazine) that acknowledges this event took place.

Also, I have already stated that guns cause harm and have no other practical purpose other than to cause harm. They are dangerous in the hands of criminals and incompetents and, at best, a potential hazard in the hands of even the most experienced gun owner.

The terrible implements of war of the soldier are every American's birthright. I frequently blast paper plates at the range, and although I'm not a good shot with my SKS (It's a combloc weapon, intended to run while dirty and be maintained by illiterate turd world peasants) , I am pretty good with my M1 out to 300 yards (50/100 shots hit the 12" paper plate).

I can hit a blue-helmet sized target about half the time at 150 yards(Wanna guess what that stands for? ;) )....and the 2900FPS 150 grain bullet will pass through a blue kevlar helmer like a red hot needle through butter. Need I say more?

MOLON LABE!

They are not responceable gun owners and should loose the right to own firearms just like somebody who drinks and drives should permanantly loose their license.


[QUOTE=Kecibukia]
I know people who argue as ardently as you regarding gun control then go to their cottages, with their shotguns and a case full of beer. I've been on these expeditions, I know what goes on, this is why I protest.

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Hitler through words alone killed more people that have been murdered in the whole of US history combined. Should not by your reasoning speach be controled and restricted?
Kennedy used an automobile to murder Mary Jo Kopechny at the Chapaquidick bridge.

Dharphor, Rwanada and Bosnia?

I've already provided you an answer to Bosnia, Rwanda and Dharphor.

Kennedy killed one person. This is not quite the mass murder that was implied by your initial post.

Hitler and other like minded people can say all they want, it won't do me any harm until some idiot acts on their words. Then it is the idiot who is harming me.

And chances are that idiot will probably be a gun owner.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

What is the purpose of a tire iron?

P.S. you can label me all you want. I am not afraid of weapons and have fired guns before. I have also been around gun collectors and hunters and know what kind of idiots they are from personal experience. I know people who argue as ardently as you regarding gun control then go to their cottages, with their shotguns and a case full of beer. I've been on these expeditions, I know what goes on, this is why I protest.

The purpose that the criminal was using for was to cause harm. By your logic, it should be locked up.

You stated earlier that you were afraid of drunk people w/ firearms. Why did you go to their cottages w/ them?

I know people that are more proficient w/ firearms than the majority of the police or military. I also "know" what goes on.

Are you insinuating all gun owners are alchoholics and "idiots"?

You are dodging the issue ....speach is more dangerous than a gun ever will be.



[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Hitler through words alone killed more people that have been murdered in the whole of US history combined. Should not by your reasoning speach be controled and restricted?
Kennedy used an automobile to murder Mary Jo Kopechny at the Chapaquidick bridge.

Dharphor, Rwanada and Bosnia?

I've already provided you an answer to Bosnia, Rwanda and Dharphor.

Kennedy killed one person. This is not quite the mass murder that was implied by your initial post.

Hitler and other like minded people can say all they want, it won't do me any harm until some idiot acts on their words. Then it is the idiot who is harming me.

And chances are that idiot will probably be a gun owner.

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

He also said"

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their fall by doing so."




And since you're entertaining such high quality company, here's some other individuals you might like to invite:

Vladimir Lenin said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."

Mao Tse-tung said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"

Thus your true motives are finally revealed. ;)

[QUOTE=Unspeakable]Hitler through words alone killed more people that have been murdered in the whole of US history combined. Should not by your reasoning speach be controled and restricted?
Kennedy used an automobile to murder Mary Jo Kopechny at the Chapaquidick bridge.

Dharphor, Rwanada and Bosnia?

I've already provided you an answer to Bosnia, Rwanda and Dharphor.

Kennedy killed one person. This is not quite the mass murder that was implied by your initial post.

Hitler and other like minded people can say all they want, it won't do me any harm until some idiot acts on their words. Then it is the idiot who is harming me.

And chances are that idiot will probably be a gun owner.


No,made some incorrect references to American history.

Once again, moving the goal-posts. Kennedy's one is more than the majority of legal gun owners put together.

Actually, even according to Canadian PD's, the majority of murders in Canada are criminal on criminal. Do you have any evidence otherwise besides your unsubstantiated anecdotes?


The Times, Los Angeles, CA, 1/9/88
When a stranger began pounding on her front door, then flung himself through her bay window, a 53-year-old Los Angeles, Calif., woman reached for the .38 revolver she kept in the house and opened fire. The mortally wounded intruder dove back through shards of glass in his efforts to escape. Police said no charges will be brought against the woman.

Let me guess, the home-owner was probably drunk, right?

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Thus your true motives are finally revealed. ;)

Riiiight! Because I'm the one who advocates disarming the citizenry.


The Record, Stockton, CA, 10/16/86 A Stockton, Calif., woman awakened by a noise investigated and found a man coming through the back door of her home. She had armed herself with a pistol and, when the man made a sexual remark, she told him to leave or she would shoot. The would-be rapist fled.

The Daily Californian, Berkeley, CA
The intruder had already raped the young mother at knifepoint in the presence of her children, and was leading her to another room. While he was distracted, the Lemon Grove, Calif., woman grabbed a handgun. As the rapist approached her with the knife, she fired once, wounding him critically.

[QUOTE]Most of the Native Americans (or Injun's as you would say) were wiped out by disease.

Actually I would say Chibcha and the reason why they where wiped out was because they were preoccupied fighting amongst themselves. Solidarity would have prevented the European conquest. Just as solidarity and education would have prevented the genocides in Africa and Bosnia. The thing most gun enthusiasts seem to ignore is that you create a civilization built on fear and violence then say; "The gun is our only salvation!" Why not focus your energy on creating a world where guns aren't necessary?

The Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, Calif., 10/16/01

A 32-year-old man was shot and killed in North Hollywood when he slashed through a door screen with a knife and threatened to kill everyone inside. The man, identified as Tony Saucedo, allegedly had assaulted his ex-girlfriend in her home. She then ran to a neighbor's home. A witness said Saucedo, knife in hand, began searching for her. He approached the wrong house and was shot once in the chest as he cut through the screen and attempted to force his way inside.


Is your "wit" sharper than his knife?

My wit would have been sharp enough to tell him he had the wrong house.

[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

The purpose that the criminal was using for was to cause harm. By your logic, it should be locked up.

You stated earlier that you were afraid of drunk people w/ firearms. Why did you go to their cottages w/ them?

I know people that are more proficient w/ firearms than the majority of the police or military. I also "know" what goes on.

Are you insinuating all gun owners are alchoholics and "idiots"?

If he is he's more of an idiot that anyone here could fathom. I own quite a few rifles, and to debunk his stereotype I don't even drink...

Although I am a pretty handy shot with an M1, that might scare him.....

:sniper:

Oye oye can you explain this?


http://www.krqe.com/expandedc.asp?RECORD_KEY[newsc]=ID&ID[newsc]=11742
Wal Mart shooter likely saved life
Source: KRQE News 13
Watch Report

ALBUQUERQUE -- A man attacking his ex-wife with a knife inside a southeast Albuquerque Wal Mart was shot and killed by a 72-year-old man Thursday evening.
It all happened around 5:30 p.m. at the store on San Mateo near Zuni. There was mayhem and confusion inside a southeast Albuquerque Wal Mart as employees and shoppers were sent fleeing by the sound of gunfire.

The victim in this case is 46-year old Joyce Cordova. She is in critical but stable condition at this time at UNM Hospital.

Albuquerque Police say Cordova had a long history of domestic violence with ex-husband Felix Vigil. A co-worker says Cordova was working in the deli was attacked by her ex-husband.

Vigil was shot to death by 72-year old Due Moore. Police won't say how many shots were fired, but some witnesses tell News 13 they heard at least three shots.

Police say Moore had a concealed carry license and is a well-known volunteer with APD's cold case unit.

“It’s probably a very good thing he (Moore) was there,” says APD Sgt. Trish Hoffman. “Ms. Cordova may not be here today if it had not been for him.”

Police say there was a valid restraining order in place against the victim's ex-husband.

Police say Moore has been very cooperative and has not been charged with any crime.


As soon as I am legally able I'm getting a Pistol and carrying.

[QUOTE]The purpose that the criminal was using for was to cause harm. By your logic, it should be locked up.

And, if the police followed correct procedure, it probably was locked up, as evidence.

You stated earlier that you were afraid of drunk people w/ firearms. Why did you go to their cottages w/ them?

Because they weren't drunk when we left.

I know people that are more proficient w/ firearms than the majority of the police or military.

Then shouldn't they be working for the police or military?

I also "know" what goes on.

And yet you still advocate loose gun control (or who knows maybe even no gun control :eek: )

Are you insinuating all gun owners are alchoholics and "idiots"?

I'm not insinuating. :D

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Actually I would say Chibcha and the reason why they where wiped out was because they were preoccupied fighting amongst themselves. Solidarity would have prevented the European conquest. Just as solidarity and education would have prevented the genocides in Africa and Bosnia. The thing most gun enthusiasts seem to ignore is that you create a civilization built on fear and violence then say; "The gun is our only salvation!" Why not focus your energy on creating a world where guns aren't necessary?

After 90% of the population was wiped out in the America's.

There was lots of education for the purveyors of the African Genocides, how to kill people more efficiently w/o firearms.

Firearms will always be necessary for one reason or another. You, however, are only able to focus on one and believe it to be the only reason there is.



My wit would have been sharp enough to tell him he had the wrong house.

Right before he stabbed you and killed your neighbor who came to you for help.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_doors.jpg

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_doors.jpgThe Purpose of gun controll is so that they don't end up in the wrong hands... :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

If he is he's more of an idiot that anyone here could fathom. I own quite a few rifles, and to debunk his stereotype I don't even drink...

Although I am a pretty handy shot with an M1, that might scare him.....

:sniper:

The finest infantry weapon ever developed.

I'm better w/ a K98 though.

(also a tea-totaller)

The Purpose of gun controll is so that they don't end up in the wrong hands... :rolleyes:

So then why do the majority of "gun control " laws only affect those who follow them and (according to nearly all research AMA, CDC, etc) have little to no effect on crime?

So then why do the majority of "gun control " laws only affect those who follow them and (according to nearly all research AMA, CDC, etc) have little to no effect on crime?How the hell is there supposed to be research on gun control if effective nationwide gun control has never been in effect nationwide US?

And, if the police followed correct procedure, it probably was locked up, as evidence.

Most likely, after he was killed.



Because they weren't drunk when we left.

But they had the beer w/ them. You didn't think they'ld drink it?



Then shouldn't they be working for the police or military?

Why should they?



And yet you still advocate loose gun control (or who knows maybe even no gun control :eek: )

Find me the post where I said that. I oppose disarming a Law-Abiding Citizenry.



I'm not insinuating. :D

So since, at least two Legal Gun Owners on this board don't drink, and I have a MA in History, your beliefs are proven wrong.

The Purpose of gun controll is so that they don't end up in the wrong hands... :rolleyes:

You mean mine?

http://img400.imageshack.us/img400/3240/ak472s0qi.th.jpg (http://img400.imageshack.us/my.php?image=ak472s0qi.jpg)

How the hell is there supposed to be research on gun control if effective nationwide gun control has never been in effect nationwide US?

There are quite a few federal laws.

1934 Firearm bill
1968 Firearm Bills
1984 FOPA
Brady Bill
Clinton AWB

Just to name a few.

Most likely, after he was killed.





But they had the beer w/ them. You didn't think they'ld drink it?





Why should they?





Find me the post where I said that. I oppose disarming a Law-Abiding Citizenry.





So since, at least two Legal Gun Owners on this board don't drink, and I have a MA in History, your beliefs are proven wrong.

Hey, count me in. No criminal history, No warrants, squeaky clean record, and I am a gunowner.


But hey, this is the south so most people are like me in that respect...

You mean mine?

Are you a cop? No? Then yup, yours, dude. Yours. Sure thing. I'm totally there.

Indians were never armed on a even remotely even level to either the Brits or the US Army. When they were, look what happened, Little Big Horn.

Had ther not been a UN SANTIONED army embargo the Bosnians would have been able to fight back and prevent the ethnic cleasing.

If you say otherwise you are being intelectually dishonest.

Little Big Horn was a miscalculation on the part of Custard. He attacked people that were waiting for him. European conquest was achieved because the tribes fought against each other and believed that if they allied themselves with the Europeans they would conquer their rivals. In the end the Europeans betrayed them and took their land.

With regards to your post on Bosnia, how would ownership of handguns be a viable defense against artillery?

On February 6, 1994, the world's attention turned completely to Bosnia as a marketplace in Sarajevo was struck by a Serb mortar shell killing 68 persons and wounding nearly 200. Sights and sounds of the bloody carnage were broadcast globally by the international news media and soon resulted in calls for military intervention against the Serbs.

The U.S. under its new President, Bill Clinton, who had promised during his election campaign in 1992 to stop the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia, now issued an ultimatum through the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) demanding that the Serbs withdraw their artillery from Sarajevo. The Serbs quickly complied and a NATO-imposed cease-fire in Sarajevo was declared.

http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm

Are you a cop? No? Then yup, yours, dude. Yours. Sure thing. I'm totally there.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_irs.jpg

The Union, San Diego, CA, 9/26/89

Timothy Dimasi's 13-year-old daughter heard men talking outside her El Cajon, Calif., home in the early morning hours, and she woke her father. The homeowner armed himself with a rifle, and upon entering the girl's room he saw a man climbing in the window. Dimasi opened fire, killing the intruder; a second suspect escaped.

And these guys just wanted to ask the daughter out on a date, right?

And of course the problem of crime is solved when you kill someone...
...Unless he has friends.

There are quite a few federal laws.

1934 Firearm bill
1968 Firearm Bills
1984 FOPA Firearm owners' protection act-stopped the startling abuses of power by the ATF
Brady Bill
Clinton AWB The Clinton AWB died last year, thank God.

Just to name a few.

.

Are you a cop? No? Then yup, yours, dude. Yours. Sure thing. I'm totally there.

Come and get them. MOLON LABE!


:sniper:

Little Big Horn was a miscalculation on the part of Custard. He attacked people that were waiting for him. European conquest was achieved because the tribes fought against each other and believed that if they allied themselves with the Europeans they would conquer their rivals. In the end the Europeans betrayed them and took their land.

With regards to your post on Bosnia, how would ownership of handguns be a viable defense against artillery?



http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm

Once again, AFTER 90% of the indigenous population had been wiped out.



I notice you left out this part:

Sarajevo soon became known as the city where Serb snipers continually shot down helpless civilians in the streets, including eventually over 3,500 children.

Bosnian Muslims were hopelessly outgunned. As the Serbs gained ground, they began to systematically roundup local Muslims in scenes eerily similar to those that had occurred under the Nazis during World War II, including mass shootings, forced repopulation of entire towns, and confinement in make-shift concentration camps for men and boys. The Serbs also terrorized Muslim families into fleeing their villages by using rape as a weapon against women and girls.

The actions of the Serbs were labeled as 'ethnic cleansing,' a name which quickly took hold among the international media.



http://www.a-human-right.com/panther_s.jpg

I think that obsolete guns should no longer be manufactured.

Does this mean you think modern guns (ie. automatic weapons, assault rifles, submachine guns) should continue to be manufactured?

First off if the guy was going drinking and wanted to carry a piece then I would agree he was an asshole. Alcohol and guns never ever mix..unless you are sober and shooting at empties.

Unfortunately I know too many examples where guns and drinking inevitably mix. This is not just in Colombia, but in Canada and the U.S. (ironically I have never fired a weapon in Colombia. I have fired guns in Atlanta, Georgia and Northern Ontario)

There are quite a few federal laws.

1934 Firearm bill
1968 Firearm Bills
1984 FOPA
Brady Bill
Clinton AWB

Just to name a few.
Crime has steadily dropped in the past 15 years, particulary in large cities.

Were the unarmed citizens of Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia well served by NOT having guns for self defense?

No, the weren't better served by not having guns for self-defense.

No, the weren't better served by not having guns for self-defense.There are no gun control laws in those places.

Besides... if you wish to compare Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia to the US... Fine by me...

And of course the problem of crime is solved when you kill someone...
...Unless he has friends.

What, do people only keep like 3 or 4 rounds of ammunition? C'mon, I have almost 2000 rds of ammo for my rifles. It would take a lot of intruders to make me run dry :D !

The terrible implements of war of the soldier are every American's birthright. I frequently blast paper plates at the range, and although I'm not a good shot with my SKS (It's a combloc weapon, intended to run while dirty and be maintained by illiterate turd world peasants) , I am pretty good with my M1 out to 300 yards (50/100 shots hit the 12" paper plate).

I can hit a blue-helmet sized target about half the time at 150 yards(Wanna guess what that stands for? ;) )....and the 2900FPS 150 grain bullet will pass through a blue kevlar helmer like a red hot needle through butter. Need I say more?

MOLON LABE!

Either you are being sarcastic or you are providing me with undisputable evidence that gun advocates are either idiots or assholes.

And of course the problem of crime is solved when you kill someone...


That particular instance...Yes.

As for "friends", in such paramount instances of gun control, in the UK, the Gov't will pay for criminals to sue their victims while their "friends" publicly threaten them and the gov't does nothing.

Since you never answered the question earlier, I guess you WOULD her have been raped/beaten/killed instead of defending herself.

Does this mean you think modern guns (ie. automatic weapons, assault rifles, submachine guns) should continue to be manufactured?



Unfortunately I know too many examples where guns and drinking inevitably mix. This is not just in Colombia, but in Canada and the U.S. (ironically I have never fired a weapon in Colombia. I have fired guns in Atlanta, Georgia and Northern Ontario)

And I've been posting examples of people defending themselves w/o any alchohol involved.

Crime has steadily dropped in the past 15 years, particulary in large cities.

Nationwide it had been dropping BEFORE the CAWB and the Brady Bill came into effect.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_irs.jpg
I don't care. Guns are a menace and I, nor do any of the people I know, live next to, or work with in the city of Toronto want guns of any sort on the streets of Toronto, save those in police holsters.

Is that so hard to digest, fella?

The Purpose of gun controll is so that they don't end up in the wrong hands... :rolleyes:

But guns will always wind up in the wrong hands. Sorry but Gun control just doesn't work.

BTW: Why is gun violance down in the US while gun ownership is up?

Either you are being sarcastic or you are providing me with undisputable evidence that gun advocates are either idiots or assholes.

So far all the "evidence" you've presented has been disputable.

How's the research on Athens, TN coming?

Come and get them. MOLON LABE!


:sniper:
Yeah and MOLSON LABEL right back atcha. Don't pack heat in my city, Arf.

How the hell is there supposed to be research on gun control if effective nationwide gun control has never been in effect nationwide US?

It has been tried before. Assault Weapons ban anyone? It didn't do nothing. There have been attempts and those attempts failed and the bills were not renewed because they have failed.

DRIVING IS NOT A RIGHT! and it kills more people than guns ..ban cars before guns.
These types of arguments are just unbelieveable.

Guns are MADE for KILLING.

Cars are MADE for TRANSPORTATION.

If you ban cars, the economy will die. If you ban guns, less people will die.

Although if cars are banned, there would be less drive by shootings. :rolleyes:

But guns will always wind up in the wrong hands. Sorry but Gun control just doesn't work.

BTW: Why is gun violance down in the US while gun ownership is up?
Dunno. Hope we can stem the flow of illegal weapons into our country from the US, though. Especially living here in Toronto.

There are quite a few federal laws.

1934 Firearm bill
1968 Firearm Bills
1984 FOPA
Brady Bill
Clinton AWB

Just to name a few.

And every single one of them has failed utterly. Only way to prevent gun crime is to have a gun yourself. Crooks even suspect you have a gun, they won't bother you because they want to live to see tomorrow.

I don't care. Guns are a menace and I, nor do any of the people I know, live next to, or work with in the city of Toronto want guns of any sort on the streets of Toronto, save those in police holsters.

Is that so hard to digest, fella?

Fine, you get those laws passed. Then let's see crime continue to clime as the STILL ARMED criminals know that noone can protect themselves.

Same thing happened in Washington DC and Chicago.

BTW, all the nonsense that "gun control" advocates keep spewing is pretty hard to digest.

Crime has steadily dropped in the past 15 years, particulary in large cities.

You know why? Because the Citizens have GUNS! :D

Fine, you get those laws passed. Then let's see crime continue to clime as the STILL ARMED criminals know that noone can protect themselves.

Same thing happened in Washington DC and Chicago.

BTW, all the nonsense that "gun control" advocates keep spewing is pretty hard to digest.
Provided we can stop illegal firearms entering Canada from the US, I'm pretty confident we'll manage quite well with effective gun laws and appropriate sentencing for crimes committed with the use of firearms. And anyway, it's worth a try - nothing ventured, nothing gained, after all.

These types of arguments are just unbelieveable.

Guns are MADE for KILLING.

Cars are MADE for TRANSPORTATION.

If you ban cars, the economy will die. If you ban guns, less people will die.

Although if cars are banned, there would be less drive by shootings. :rolleyes:

We've already covered the uses of firearms Canuck.

And unless you want to get into a numbers game again, you know from previous debates that "less people will die" is not truthful.

There are no gun control laws in those places.

Besides... if you wish to compare Rwanda, Dharphor and Bosnia to the US... Fine by me...

Then why is there still a genocide going on in Sudan? Why did it take the intervention of NATO (because the UN was to chicken to do anything) in Bosnia? If there were no gun control laws then why didn't the citizens have guns?

[QUOTE]No,made some incorrect references to American history.

Once again, moving the goal-posts. Kennedy's one is more than the majority of legal gun owners put together.

If I'm moving the goal post it's because your aim is brutal. You have provided examples in which gun owners have shot and killed intruders. Or were those guns not legally registered?

Actually, even according to Canadian PD's, the majority of murders in Canada are criminal on criminal. Do you have any evidence otherwise besides your unsubstantiated anecdotes?

I'm curious to see this stat. Of course whether or not criminals murder other criminals is irrelevant, the debate is to determine the likely hood that an innocent person might get shot if a ban on guns is applied. Simple logic answers this question, the less guns there are in the world, the less the chances are that a person will get shot.

Let me guess, the home-owner was probably drunk, right?

The article didn't say. But with all these articles you've been posting I'm starting to think the U.S. is more dangerous than Colombia.

Does this mean you think modern guns (ie. automatic weapons, assault rifles, submachine guns) should continue to be manufactured?



Unfortunately I know too many examples where guns and drinking inevitably mix. This is not just in Colombia, but in Canada and the U.S. (ironically I have never fired a weapon in Colombia. I have fired guns in Atlanta, Georgia and Northern Ontario)

Yep. There's always a buyer looking for them. I am infact looking for an AKM receiver and an Arsenal Inc SAM-7 to round out my cold-war era collection.

Here's my 1968 Chinese SKS. Bought it for 150$, shoots great and has all matching numbers. Never has even hiccuped with poor quality ammunition. It works great and I'm going to keep it for a while. It was my first 'evil rifle'. To make it even more evil, I bought it from a private seller, so I didn't have to go through a background check or fill out any forms, and skip the waiting period crap.

img399.imageshack.us/img399/4521/sksinbackofpickup4fo.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sksinbackofpickup4fo.jpg)


img399.imageshack.us/img399/1745/sksingrass7ds.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sksingrass7ds.jpg)

img399.imageshack.us/img399/3702/sksonwoodtable7mz.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sksonwoodtable7mz.jpg)

We've already covered the uses of firearms Canuck.

And unless you want to get into a numbers game again, you know from previous debates that "less people will die" is not truthful.
How would you know? You haven't given it a try.

At least I'm willing to see that much done before I give up on living and arm myself to the teeth.

[QUOTE]Riiiight! Because I'm the one who advocates disarming the citizenry.

You advocate disarming the citizenry? Good for you, now the next step is to get rid of guns altogether.

Provided we can stop illegal firearms entering Canada from the US, I'm pretty confident we'll manage quite well with effective gun laws and appropriate sentencing for crimes committed with the use of firearms. And anyway, it's worth a try - nothing ventured, nothing gained, after all.

This one's already been argued as well.

The Canadian police have no idea how many guns are acquired from illegal smuggling or from domestic sources. They also have no idea how many illegal guns are already in circulation. They don't just magically disappear when another piece of legislation is introduced.

I thought the previous gun registrations were supposed to be effective in solving crime? Why would more non-sensical laws be any different?

But right, It's all the US's fault. I forgot.

How would you know? You haven't given it a try.

At least I'm willing to see that much done before I give up on living and arm myself to the teeth.

Oh I have, many ,many times w/ Canuck.

No one ever said you have to "arm yourself". The whole issue is about wether those who haven't commited any crimes should be punished for those who have.

These types of arguments are just unbelieveable.

Guns are MADE for KILLING.

But you know what? They are also made for Self-Defense! :eek:

Cars are MADE for TRANSPORTATION.

Ever seen what a hit and run looks like? People will kill someone with a car because they can. Its been done before. Vehicular Homicide I think is the charge in that case :D

If you ban cars, the economy will die. If you ban guns, less people will die.

Not necessarily. I can get to any place I want to simply by hopping a bus. Now we are talking cars here and not mass transportation so don't even think about trying to alter this.

As for guns, if you ban guns, gun crime will go up because the non law-abiding citizenry will have free reign. The lacs will have nothing left to defend themselves. Nice job. I see murder rates going up.

Although if cars are banned, there would be less drive by shootings. :rolleyes:

I think you just destroyed your own arguement! LOL! Also, if you ban cars, drunk driving will go down alot as well and we'll have less deaths due to drunk drivers. YES! Lets ban cars, but after I graduate from the university first :D

This one's already been argued as well.

The Canadian police have no idea how many guns are acquired from illegal smuggling or from domestic sources. They also have no idea how many illegal guns are already in circulation. They don't just magically disappear when another piece of legislation is introduced.

I thought the previous gun registrations were supposed to be effective in solving crime? Why would more non-sensical laws be any different?

But right, It's all the US's fault. I forgot.
Whatever. I don't give a shit about American's gun rights, or privileges, or entitlements, or birthrights, actual, imagined, or legislated at any level of government, okay? And maybe you've debated all this before, and I haven't, but the thread apparently pertains to Toronto, and I live here, and you don't, and I'm telling you, we don't frickin' want guns. Okay? Are we done here? You want me to start going over the top about America? Hey, I'm not the droid you're looking for, sir or madam. Own as many or few guns as you wish. I couldn't care less what you get up to in your country, town or city.

[QUOTE]Oye oye can you explain this?

I clicked on your link and saw this...

Microsoft OLE DB Provider for SQL Server error '80040e14'

Line 1: Incorrect syntax near '='.

/expandedc.asp, line 72

So no, I can't explain it.

As soon as I am legally able I'm getting a Pistol and carrying.

Does this mean you're not old enough to be shooting your M1?

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

If I'm moving the goal post it's because your aim is brutal. You have provided examples in which gun owners have shot and killed intruders. Or were those guns not legally registered?

Nice dodge. There are over 80 Million legal gun owners in the US.



I'm curious to see this stat. Of course whether or not criminals murder other criminals is irrelevant, the debate is to determine the likely hood that an innocent person might get shot if a ban on guns is applied. Simple logic answers this question, the less guns there are in the world, the less the chances are that a person will get shot.

1999 Canada Statistics. Your own people.

Gun registrations and bans have already been applied and yet people are still being shot. Why is that?

The less cars in the world, the less chances of being run over.



The article didn't say. But with all these articles you've been posting I'm starting to think the U.S. is more dangerous than Colombia.

In some areas, yes. Others (including many w/ progressive gun laws)are less.

Whatever. I don't give a shit about American's gun rights, or privileges, or entitlements, or birthrights, actual, imagined, or legislated at any level of government, okay? And maybe you've debated all this before, and I haven't, but the thread apparently pertains to Toronto, and I live here, and you don't, and I'm telling you, we don't frickin' want guns. Okay? Are we done here? You want me to start going over the top about America? Hey, I'm not the droid you're looking for, sir or madam. Own as many or few guns as you wish. I couldn't care less what you get up to in your country, town or city.

Actually I was talking about Canadian gun laws.

You're right though, with all the hostility you're presenting, you shouldn't be allowed to own a gun.

[QUOTE]After 90% of the population was wiped out in the America's.

There was lots of education for the purveyors of the African Genocides, how to kill people more efficiently w/o firearms.

Firearms will always be necessary for one reason or another. You, however, are only able to focus on one and believe it to be the only reason there is.

To be honest I can't even do that. I see no reasons to continue mass producing and distributing guns.

Right before he stabbed you and killed your neighbor who came to you for help.

Wow you really do wish harm to fall upon anyone who doesn't agree with you.

As I've said before, I prefer my chances against a knife to a gun.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

You advocate disarming the citizenry? Good for you, now the next step is to get rid of guns altogether.

I guess this is an effective debate method to you?

So, so far we have:

Racist stereotypes
moving the goalposts
Ad-hominems
America-bashing
innacurate history

Most likely, after he was killed.

Should I move the goal posts closer?

But they had the beer w/ them. You didn't think they'ld drink it?

Not while they were loading and firing their guns. No, exaggeration, load, sip, fire, sip. (repeat for three days then drive home.)

Why should they?

No reason, just thought they might use their skills to make the world a safer place, but then if their attitude reflects your own, they're better off staying at home.

Find me the post where I said that.

Where you said what?

I oppose disarming a Law-Abiding Citizenry.

Really? I had no idea.

So since, at least two Legal Gun Owners on this board don't drink, and I have a MA in History, your beliefs are proven wrong.

How do I know they don't drink? I want a link that validates that statement, and I want a link that validates the statement that you have an MA in history. Otherwise I'll continue to presume you're all in bred hicks, just like those guys from "The Deliverance"

"C'mon, squeal like a pig!"

*Snip ranting ignorance*

You know what, you're right,with the maturity level you've presented, you shouldn't be allowed to own a firearm.

(waits to have post snipped to make it sound like I'm agreeing w/ him.)

Nobody should be allowed. Not around here, anyway.

Once again, AFTER 90% of the indigenous population had been wiped out.

This statement does not disprove anything I've said so I don't know why you bother making it.

I notice you left out this part:

Sarajevo soon became known as the city where Serb snipers continually shot down helpless civilians in the streets, including eventually over 3,500 children.

Bosnian Muslims were hopelessly outgunned. As the Serbs gained ground, they began to systematically roundup local Muslims in scenes eerily similar to those that had occurred under the Nazis during World War II, including mass shootings, forced repopulation of entire towns, and confinement in make-shift concentration camps for men and boys. The Serbs also terrorized Muslim families into fleeing their villages by using rape as a weapon against women and girls.

The actions of the Serbs were labeled as 'ethnic cleansing,' a name which quickly took hold among the international media.

Congratulations. What good would handguns do against superior weapons? The fact that snipers shot down innocent civilians does not dismiss the fact that the Serbs had artillery and other military style weapons at their disposal. Look at the war in Iraq. The insurgents have rocket launchers and assault rifles. Is this making the situation any better for innocent civilians?

What, do people only keep like 3 or 4 rounds of ammunition? C'mon, I have almost 2000 rds of ammo for my rifles. It would take a lot of intruders to make me run dry :D !

And I guess you never sleep either.

Nobody should be allowed. Not around here, anyway.

Adn yet the criminals will still have them and the murders will continue. Go figure.

That particular instance...Yes.

As for "friends", in such paramount instances of gun control, in the UK, the Gov't will pay for criminals to sue their victims while their "friends" publicly threaten them and the gov't does nothing.

Since you never answered the question earlier, I guess you WOULD her have been raped/beaten/killed instead of defending herself.

It's interesting how gun advocates like to use the defence of dainty women to promote their cause. The woman was lucky that she was able to draw her gun in time and the people in the articles you've presented were lucky that they came across criminals that who attacked them did not possess guns themselves. Had this woman not been able to get to her gun, and had the criminal killed her, then you would have a dangerous criminal walking around with a gun.

Adn yet the criminals will still have them and the murders will continue. Go figure.
Won't know that 'til we try. We're up for it. Obviously you're not.

Go figure.

And I've been posting examples of people defending themselves w/o any alchohol involved.

Really? Not one of those articles stated that the shooters were not under the influence.

We've already covered the uses of firearms Canuck.
Yeah but stating cars should be banned is just plain nonsense and should never be used as an argument to support the poliferation of deadly guns.

And unless you want to get into a numbers game again, you know from previous debates that "less people will die" is not truthful.
The math is straightforward? If there are zero guns, then there will be zero drive by shootings?

So far all the "evidence" you've presented has been disputable.

How's the research on Athens, TN coming?

I was about to ask you the same question.

Yep. There's always a buyer looking for them. I am infact looking for an AKM receiver and an Arsenal Inc SAM-7 to round out my cold-war era collection.

Here's my 1968 Chinese SKS. Bought it for 150$, shoots great and has all matching numbers. Never has even hiccuped with poor quality ammunition. It works great and I'm going to keep it for a while. It was my first 'evil rifle'. To make it even more evil, I bought it from a private seller, so I didn't have to go through a background check or fill out any forms, and skip the waiting period crap.

Very nice. Does this mean you believe in the free trade of these weapons or should there be restrictions on who is able to buy them? If so, what should these restrictions be?

[QUOTE]Nice dodge. There are over 80 Million legal gun owners in the US.

How is this a dodge? And speaking of dodges, how does your statistic apply?

1999 Canada Statistics. Your own people.

Waiting for the proof...

Gun registrations and bans have already been applied and yet people are still being shot. Why is that?

Because guns still exist.

The less cars in the world, the less chances of being run over.

And less chance of polluting the environment, less of a reason to go to war in a foreign country, etc... Maybe we should get rid of cars. But first let's work on ditching the guns.

In some areas, yes. Others (including many w/ progressive gun laws)are less.

When you say progressive do you mean reduction of arms? Because to me that is the only real progress.

[QUOTE]I guess this is an effective debate method to you?

Not really, I save the good stuff for someone who actually has a point worth debating.

So, so far we have:

Racist stereotypes
moving the goalposts
Ad-hominems
America-bashing
innacurate history

So far we have:

Some one whose opinion means absolutely nothing.

And unless you want to get into a numbers game again, you know from previous debates that "less people will die" is not truthful.
All I know is this much:

The US murder rate is 3 times higher than Canada's.

Approximately 70% of US murders are commited with a firearm versus 26% in Canada. Hmmm perhaps that helps explain why the US murder ratio is 3 times higher than Canada's?

[QUOTE=ARF-COM and IBTL]

I clicked on your link and saw this...



So no, I can't explain it.



Does this mean you're not old enough to be shooting your M1?

Nope. I can legally own ANY rifle and ANY handgun, however in order to buy a handgun from a Federal Firearm licensee I must be 21. However to buy from a private seller that doesn't apply, however I must be atleast 18, which I am. All of the private sellers I've bought guns from have checked my ID to verify my legal right to purchase firearms.

Here is my M1 Garand. She's a 1944 Springfield Armory made rifle which was carried by the Marines or the Army in Korea. I'm betting that it was a front-line rifle due to the large amount of dings in the wood and stock. I rest safely at night knowing my rifle once was used as a battle rifle (Probably even killed a few communists) and was carried by a guy just like myself. I call my rifle '29' because that's the cartouche on the end of the stock.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/166/297ud.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=297ud.jpg)


http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4453/garandinbathroom7qu.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=garandinbathroom7qu.jpg)

The Business end of the beast....For those who don't know it's where the bullets exit at a very rapid pace.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/74/businessend7ry.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=businessend7ry.jpg)


Dents and divots in the stock where I'm guessing it was dragged over barbed wire or dropped on it.

http://img399.imageshack.us/img399/4578/dingsinwood0vb.th.jpg (http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=dingsinwood0vb.jpg)

At no point during this production were any alcoholic bevarages or Cute furry puppies harmed.

Oye oye copy and paste.


http://www.krqe.com/expandedc.asp?RECORD_KEY[newsc]=ID&ID[newsc]=11742

This statement does not disprove anything I've said so I don't know why you bother making it.

Let me explain it to you slowly.

You stated the "injuns" (to use your words) were killed while equally armed (even though they weren't)

I showed that the majority of them were killed by disease. Therefore the majority of the indians were not able to defend themselves w/ equal terms.



Congratulations. What good would handguns do against superior weapons? The fact that snipers shot down innocent civilians does not dismiss the fact that the Serbs had artillery and other military style weapons at their disposal. Look at the war in Iraq. The insurgents have rocket launchers and assault rifles. Is this making the situation any better for innocent civilians?

So every Serb had a cannon or rocket launcher? What does Iraq have to do w/ it?

Oh wait. moving the goals again? Right.

It's interesting how gun advocates like to use the defence of dainty women to promote their cause. The woman was lucky that she was able to draw her gun in time and the people in the articles you've presented were lucky that they came across criminals that who attacked them did not possess guns themselves. Had this woman not been able to get to her gun, and had the criminal killed her, then you would have a dangerous criminal walking around with a gun.

And a dead woman instead of a dead rapist. You prefer that I gather.

Really? Not one of those articles stated that the shooters were not under the influence.

Another inane "arguement".

Yeah but stating cars should be banned is just plain nonsense and should never be used as an argument to support the poliferation of deadly guns.


The math is straightforward? If there are zero guns, then there will be zero drive by shootings?

But there are guns, have been guns, and will be guns. Let's stay in the real world.

I was about to ask you the same question.

You stated you would comment on the article if provided w/ sources. They were provided.

How's the analysis coming? Or are you going to avoid this as well?

How is this a dodge? And speaking of dodges, how does your statistic apply?


Are you really this oblivious? 80 million does not equal the doz. or so examples.


Waiting for the proof...

Provided the source. I'm sure you'll just ignore it as well.


Because guns still exist.

That's right, so how is taking them away from people who haven't committed crimes going to reduce crime?



And less chance of polluting the environment, less of a reason to go to war in a foreign country, etc... Maybe we should get rid of cars. But first let's work on ditching the guns.

Criminals first.



When you say progressive do you mean reduction of arms? Because to me that is the only real progress.

And also according to you :

Native Americans (oh, right, Injuns) and Africans are stupid
Short people are all "Midgets"
Hitler is a good reference for gun control.

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Not really, I save the good stuff for someone who actually has a point worth debating.



So far we have:

Some one whose opinion means absolutely nothing.

You're right. Your opinion means absolutely nothing.

All I know is this much:

The US murder rate is 3 times higher than Canada's.

Approximately 70% of US murders are commited with a firearm versus 26% in Canada. Hmmm perhaps that helps explain why the US murder ratio is 3 times higher than Canada's?

And how many of those were committed w/ legally owned firearms?

Are you trying to make the "more guns=more crime" comparison again Canuck?

Maybe that explains why ownership has increased while crime has decreased while in Canada, even w/ the new registration laws and confiscations costing over $1.2 BILLION crime has stayed steady or increased?

Oye oye,

Why would you support disarming ME? I have a constitutional right to bear arms, something you do not seem to realize.

And how many of those were committed w/ legally owned firearms?

Are you trying to make the "more guns=more crime" comparison again Canuck?

Maybe that explains why ownership has increased while crime has decreased while in Canada, even w/ the new registration laws and confiscations costing over $1.2 BILLION crime has stayed steady or increased?
You obviously think you have all the right answers, but you don't. The fact remains that YOU are almost 3 times more likely to be killed by a gun in YOUR country than I am in mine. We have gun control and you don't. I think that speaks volumes about the subject and I really don't want to get into a bunch of circular debates about it.

Enjoy your guns, and hopefully, you don't have to shoot anyone and vice versa.

You obviously think you have all the right answers, but you don't. The fact remains that YOU are almost 3 times more likely to be killed by a gun in YOUR country than I am in mine. We have gun control and you don't. I think that speaks volumes about the subject and I really don't want to get into a bunch of circular debates about it.

Enjoy your guns, and hopefully, you don't have to shoot anyone and vice versa.

Actually in "my" area, the stats are about the same as Canada. It's when you get up around Chicago that the numbers increase.

We don't have gun control!? Damn, I'm going to go out and buy that M2 heavy machinegun right away!! When were the 20,000 plus laws repealed?

I will enjoy my guns and I hope I never do have to shoot anyone. However, if it comes down to giving in to a criminal or protecting my family, I'll choose my family every time.

You obviously think you have all the right answers, but you don't. The fact remains that YOU are almost 3 times more likely to be killed by a gun in YOUR country than I am in mine. We have gun control and you don't. I think that speaks volumes about the subject and I really don't want to get into a bunch of circular debates about it.

Enjoy your guns, and hopefully, you don't have to shoot anyone and vice versa.

Depends on where you live-don't critiscize us for the festering crapholes that gun control zealots have created. Look where there are heavy registration and control efforts-Los Angeles and New york. Citizens are prohibited from OWNING so-called "assault weapons" however criminal gangs use them frequently, which in turn gives Dianne Fineswine an excuse to crack down more on law-abiding citizens.

Depends on where you live-don't critiscize us for the festering crapholes that gun control zealots have created. Look where there are heavy registration and control efforts-Los Angeles and New york. Citizens are prohibited from OWNING so-called "assault weapons" however criminal gangs use them frequently, which in turn gives Dianne Fineswine an excuse to crack down more on law-abiding citizens.

Don't forget DC & Chicago.

Another "Rights-control" hypocrite. The lady who got a Concealed-Carry Permit when she was threatened and now has armed security but opposes self-defense for Law-Abiding Citizens.

But guns will always wind up in the wrong hands. Sorry but Gun control just doesn't work.

BTW: Why is gun violance down in the US while gun ownership is up?I'm not sure but if that is so I'm glad. But the image that America has in Europe is that of a country where disgruntled workers and students go on shooting sprees at their jobs and schools, and where people shoot each other for the sheer "joy" of playing god.

Then why is there still a genocide going on in Sudan? Why did it take the intervention of NATO (because the UN was to chicken to do anything) in Bosnia? If there were no gun control laws then why didn't the citizens have guns?The citizens don't even have food to eat and roofs over there heads let alone guns.

Well in the states 30 minutes ..if your lucky.


Yeah, ditto on the response format, there Unspeakable. I'll respond to your question regarding summoning police in the heart of Toronto-Centre-Rosedale, the chunk of the downtown core where I live:

If it is a call regarding a violent crime, the elapsed time form making the call to the arrival of the cops clocks in at under sixty seconds. The usual practice is to keep the caller on the phone until the officers arrive, though. It's never been longer than a minute's wait time. And it's hardly a surprise; Toronto boasts, per capita, the second largest police force by population (or so it has been bandied about, alternately proudly or disgustedly, depending on your point-of-view vis-a-vis municipal politics). I've had to call the police to report about six incidents in the last five years. I have yet to be disappointed.

Dude you need more practice! :) at 150m I could put them in your EYE not just your helmet. It sounds like you may have a breath control problem. How were you taught to shoot?(I was a rifle/pistol Coach when I was in the Marines)

The terrible implements of war of the soldier are every American's birthright. I frequently blast paper plates at the range, and although I'm not a good shot with my SKS (It's a combloc weapon, intended to run while dirty and be maintained by illiterate turd world peasants) , I am pretty good with my M1 out to 300 yards (50/100 shots hit the 12" paper plate).

I can hit a blue-helmet sized target about half the time at 150 yards(Wanna guess what that stands for? ;) )....and the 2900FPS 150 grain bullet will pass through a blue kevlar helmer like a red hot needle through butter. Need I say more?

MOLON LABE!

But you can't reason with people bent on do you harm. No the gun is not the ONLY salvation it is the salvation of LAST resort. A gun is a final arbitor that alows NO appeal and it's use bears great weight. You see to think think that pro gun people advocate the use of guns first.



[QUOTE=Kecibukia]

Actually I would say Chibcha and the reason why they where wiped out was because they were preoccupied fighting amongst themselves. Solidarity would have prevented the European conquest. Just as solidarity and education would have prevented the genocides in Africa and Bosnia. The thing most gun enthusiasts seem to ignore is that you create a civilization built on fear and violence then say; "The gun is our only salvation!" Why not focus your energy on creating a world where guns aren't necessary?



My wit would have been sharp enough to tell him he had the wrong house.

The guy(or gal) on the right has some issues with trigger squeeze. ;)



[QUOTE=Oye Oye]

After 90% of the population was wiped out in the America's.

There was lots of education for the purveyors of the African Genocides, how to kill people more efficiently w/o firearms.

Firearms will always be necessary for one reason or another. You, however, are only able to focus on one and believe it to be the only reason there is.





Right before he stabbed you and killed your neighbor who came to you for help.

http://www.a-human-right.com/s_doors.jpg

Glad we have the 2nd amendment here. Look at Britain and Austrailia. Gun homicide rates are rising despite a ban on civilian firearms. The crime rate drops in cities in the US that have right to carry.

Are you a cop? No? Then yup, yours, dude. Yours. Sure thing. I'm totally there.

You know as well as I the bulk of the murders were NOT commited with artillery but with small groups of men with guns.



Little Big Horn was a miscalculation on the part of Custard. He attacked people that were waiting for him. European conquest was achieved because the tribes fought against each other and believed that if they allied themselves with the Europeans they would conquer their rivals. In the end the Europeans betrayed them and took their land.

With regards to your post on Bosnia, how would ownership of handguns be a viable defense against artillery?



http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/Genocide/bosnia_genocide.htm

Yes I agree with the continued manufacture of firearms.

Unfortunaly drink and driving occures too I'd like to see both stop.
Alcohol doesnt mix with lead or steel.

No one would like to see irrisponceable gun owners go away more than I they paint the responceable ones with a bad brush. and give fuel to views like yours
I think if you had more interaction with responcable gun owners your opinion may be slighty different.


Does this mean you think modern guns (ie. automatic weapons, assault rifles, submachine guns) should continue to be manufactured?



Unfortunately I know too many examples where guns and drinking inevitably mix. This is not just in Colombia, but in Canada and the U.S. (ironically I have never fired a weapon in Colombia. I have fired guns in Atlanta, Georgia and Northern Ontario)

Ok then put governer on all cars so that they can only go 35 mph and all cars can only have 4 cylender engines we'll call it car control.


These types of arguments are just unbelieveable.

Guns are MADE for KILLING.

Cars are MADE for TRANSPORTATION.

If you ban cars, the economy will die. If you ban guns, less people will die.

Although if cars are banned, there would be less drive by shootings. :rolleyes:

Dobbs you miss they point. Gun control laws only effect people who will obey they law. I'm also not asking you to ever arm your self.
Most but not all of the people who want the right to carry are prior military and are highly trained.
Let the people who want to carry, carry and the benefit splills over on the rest of the population.
With the exception of a few crimes of passion most fire are murders are in the comission of other crimes, if they are not going to follow the existing laws what makes you think they will follow the new gun laws.
Dude you are too smart for this. Stop being emotional and think, the only people that gun laws disarm are law abiding people.
You live in Toronto a pretty good city where the cops have an awesome responce time. I live in KC an ok city where the police have a shit responce time. Our worlds our different I respect your right to not be armed but respect mine to be armed. God forbid you or a loved one is ever a crime victim because your mind would change in heartbeat.


How would you know? You haven't given it a try.

At least I'm willing to see that much done before I give up on living and arm myself to the teeth.

The citizens don't even have food to eat and roofs over there heads let alone guns.
You have raised a most excellent point. The gross national income per capita in the Sudan is $370, so it would not be hard to imagine that the purchase of a gun would be a luxury that very few people could afford?

You should be a citizen and for a shotgon of 16 gauge or greater,16, 18 for any long arm and 21 for a conceled carry permit. You must have no history of criminal activity or any physical or mental limiations and have passed a safety/proficency course.


Very nice. Does this mean you believe in the free trade of these weapons or should there be restrictions on who is able to buy them? If so, what should these restrictions be?

The crime rate drops in cities in the US that have right to carry.
In many cases, the cities with gun control, the crime rate is dropping faster than those with right to carry, and in certain cases the crime rate is increasing in cities with right to carry laws. This is not a hard and fast rule but your supposition is completely misleading.

Ak's are about $1 in parts of the third world thanks to the old soviet empire.


You have raised a most excellent point. The gross national income per capita in the Sudan is $370, so it would not be hard to imagine that the purchase of a gun would be a luxury that very few people could afford?

name a right to carry city with an incresing crime rate and a no carry city with a decreasing crime rate.

In many cases, the cities with gun control, the crime rate is dropping faster than those with right to carry, and in certain cases the crime rate is increasing in cities with right to carry laws. This is not a hard and fast rule but your supposition is completely misleading.

Ak's are about $1 in parts of the third world thanks to the old soviet empire.
You know this for a fact?

And the poorest of the Sudanese are able to track down these bargains, assemble them and have a viable weapon?

Assuming one and two are correct, the cost of ammunition would be prohibitive?

name a right to carry city with an incresing crime rate and a no carry city with a decreasing crime rate.
Richmond Virginia.

New York City

pennies a handful.


You know this for a fact?

And the poorest of the Sudanese are able to track down these bargains, assemble them and have a viable weapon?

Assuming one and two are correct, the cost of ammunition would be prohibitive?

Assuming one and two are correct, the cost of ammunition would be prohibitive?

Only in California.

pennies a handful.
Proof? And we are talking about Sudan right?

Proof? And we are talking about Sudan right?

Do you have "proof" that the costs would be prohibitive?

Dude you need more practice! :) at 150m I could put them in your EYE not just your helmet. It sounds like you may have a breath control problem. How were you taught to shoot?(I was a rifle/pistol Coach when I was in the Marines)

I haven't been to the range in about a month, I probably won't go today though because there will be a bunch of hunters there...and you know what they think about "assault weapons". I'll go Wedsnday, when the range is open next.

"You see that thar sonny? them's 'ssalt weapons ar gunna get tha res' of our gun raghts taken 'way ya hear?"

Well hey, maybe your rifle has a pristine barrel, mine went through Korea :sniper: ! I'm thinking of re-barreling it though.....wish I could find chrome barrels for the M1.

You know this for a fact?

And the poorest of the Sudanese are able to track down these bargains, assemble them and have a viable weapon?

Assuming one and two are correct, the cost of ammunition would be prohibitive?

Actually, in Pakistan you can send a child to the local Bazaar and pick up an AK for less than 50$. You can do the same in almost all of Africa and the middle east too.

You should be a citizen and for a shotgon of 16 gauge or greater,16, 18 for any long arm and 21 for a conceled carry permit. You must have no history of criminal activity or any physical or mental limiations and have passed a safety/proficency course.

Scratch that for the 21 for a CCP. Military personnel should be able to purchase a handgun at 18 and get a permit if they want to.

I'd go apply now if I could get a CCP.....that would be cool. I'd just have to get a pistola.

For OYE OYE and Canduckheaven

US Gun Statistics
Various Sources
2-2-5

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.

Good research....Richmond is ooc. HUGE drug problems.


Richmond Virginia.

New York City

For oye oye and Canuck heaven
*********************************************************************
Larry Elder

Michael & Me — The movie

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | "Michael & Me," my self-financed, independent film, recently debuted on Amazon.com.

BUY THE DVD

Michael Moore argues that America possesses "too many guns." If so, why in the last 20 years — with gun ownership up — has violent crime declined in America? Liberals believe gun control reduces crime. Does it? What about the effect on urban crime when cities outlaw so-called "cheap Saturday night specials"?


How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes? I wanted to put this question to Moore. He tells us, for example, that over 11,000 people die each year because of guns. But how many Americans credit their lives with their ability to use a gun to defend themselves?


"Michael & Me" asks why, if America possesses "too many guns," is the murder rate among Japanese Americans actually lower than in Japan? And why, in England, with severe gun restriction, is the English murder rate growing, and the violent crime rate — assaults, car thefts, hot burglaries — now exceeding ours?


As Moore did in his entertaining film "Roger & Me," I sought out the director — some might say "ambushed" — in order to ask him a few questions. (You'll have to see my film to find out what happens.)


My film interviews victims of crimes, those who protected themselves with firearms, gun owners, criminals, police officers, authors and academicians. Texas State Representative Susanna Hupp describes how she witnessed her mother and father executed by a gunman in a restaurant. The film also interviews Jane Doe, who, two days before she got raped, attempted to purchase a handgun — only to be thwarted by California's 10-day waiting period.


Some believe that the Second Amendment only confers a collective right — as part of a state militia — rather than an individual right to keep and bear arms. The film notes that the Founding Fathers clearly intended the Second Amendment to serve as a bulwark against possible tyranny by government. Why would the Founding Fathers limit the right to "keep and bear arms" to a government militia if threatened with tyranny by government?


Many Founding Fathers wrote extensively on the subject. Thomas Jefferson said, "What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms." George Washington stated, "A free people ought to be armed."


Former Vice President Hubert H. Humphrey agrees. In 1959, he said, "The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against the tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."


Respected historian Garry Wills, in a recent C-SPAN interview, called the individual-rights school flat-out wrong: "The idea that my gun protects me from my government is not in the Founders . . . it's just not there. . . . The use of the militia originally was to be a defense of the country, and the proof of that is very simple. The federal government can federalize, can put into federal service any militia at any time it wants. So the idea that the militia can be used against the federal government is nonsense."


Nonsense? Former Attorney General John Ashcroft wrote: "[L]et me state unequivocally . . . the Second Amendment clearly protect(s) the right of individuals to keep and bear firearms."


Alan Dershowitz said, "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like."


Harvard Constitutional Law professor Laurence Tribe writes that the Second Amendment is subject to "reasonable regulation," but calls gun control extremists wrong when they say the Second Amendment restricts the right to "state militias" like the National Guard. Tribe said, "The Fourteenth Amendment, which makes parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, reflected a broad agreement that bearing arms was a 'privilege' of each citizen."


Maybe historian Wills believes guns cannot thwart a tyrannical government, but tyrants do.


Vladimir Lenin said, "One man with a gun can control 100 without one."


Mao Tse-tung said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."


Joseph Stalin said, "We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?"


Adolf Hitler said, "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their fall by doing so."


"Michael & Me," in my humble opinion, also features an entertaining animated sequence in which Moore finally sits down for a "hard" interview with the filmmaker. Liberals, however, be forewarned: Some of you may find the contents disturbing. For a fact to a liberal is like Kryptonite to Superman.


Enjoy "Michael & Me."

JWR contributor Larry Elder is the author of, most recently, "Showdown: Confronting Bias, Lies and the Special Interests That Divide America."

Won't know that 'til we try. We're up for it. Obviously you're not.

Go figure.

Up for it and paying for it. looks like gun crime is on the rise.

The citizens don't even have food to eat and roofs over there heads let alone guns.

This explains genocide how?

Up for it and paying for it. looks like gun crime is on the rise.
I wasn't talking to you.

This explains genocide how?It doesn't and I never said it did. They didn't have guns becauase they couldn't afford them, not because of gun control as someone attempted to suggest.

For OYE OYE and Canduckheaven

US Gun Statistics
Various Sources
2-2-5

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets completely out of hand!

Out of concern for the public at large, I have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear the shock would cause people to panic and seek medical attention.
Yeah, I have seen this before. I challenge you to provide a reliable source for these stats that you have copied:

(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.

Good research....Richmond is ooc. HUGE drug problems.
Richmond isn't part of the US?

ooc=out of control


Richmond isn't part of the US?

ooc=out of control
And the poliferation of guns fuels the "out of control" situation.

And the poliferation of guns fuels the "out of control" situation.

I think we have a proliferation of criminals, not guns.

Canuck heaven, how will stripping me of my 2nd Amendment rights reduce crime?

If anything, the goverment should be supporting law-abiding citizens owning guns-subsidize the second amendment! Why? The government subsidizes crime through welfare, pays for fixing a broken crack addict's body through medicare, and a host of other things.

Oh wait, the Gubmint already subsidizes the 2A somewhat, although not nearly enough. Www.ODCMP.Com Great people.

"You cannot invade the mainlaind United states. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass"

-Japanese General during WWII.

I think we have a proliferation of criminals, not guns.

Canuck heaven, how will stripping me of my 2nd Amendment rights reduce crime?

The same way all the Canadian "get tough on gun" laws have made Toronto safer. Oh Wait......

http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/Commentary/2005/08/28/1192061.html

So much for gun control

When we first read the headline in last Thursday's Sun - "Feds taking aim at gun violence" - we thought that there must have been some mistake.

Gun violence? What gun violence? We have a very expensive national gun registry that was put into place to ensure that every firearm in Canada can be tracked. We have cumbersome regulations in place that make it more difficult for Canadians to buy guns. We have armies of bureaucrats shuffling paper to and fro to make sure that everything related to guns in this country is all very above-board and law-abiding.

So there can't possibly be any gun violence in Canada!

OK, we made our point. There is still lots of gun violence in Canada, and the gun registry hasn't done a single thing to stop it.

.....

Back in late 1994, when then-justice minister Allan Rock first unveiled the gun-control program, he declared, "This tough new gun-control program will improve public safety and also send a strong message that the criminal misuse of guns will not be tolerated."

Eleven years later, the Liberals are suddenly worried about gun crime because Toronto has been blitzed by gun violence. In a more sane country, Toronto would realize that the gun registry has been exposed as an expensive waste of money and would punish the Liberals for lying to them by voting them out. And the Grits would shut down their useless registry and put the money into actual police officers fighting crime.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Wow, the US is #24.....according to Oye oye and Canduck Heaven we're supposed to be #1 because of our abundance of small arms...

:rolleyes:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Wow, the US is #24.....according to Oye oye and Canduck Heaven we're supposed to be #1 because of our abundance of small arms...

:rolleyes:

In a single year, 3,012 children and teens were killed by gunfire in the United States, according to the latest national data released in 2002. That is one child every three hours; eight children every day; and more than 50 children every week. And every year, at least 4 to 5 times as many kids and teens suffer from non-fatal firearm injuries. (Children's Defense Fund and National Center for Health Statistics)

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)

Faulty records enable terrorists, illegal aliens and criminals to purchase guns. Over a two and a half-year period, at least 9,976 convicted felons and other illegal buyers in 46 states obtained guns because of inadequate records. (Broken Records, Americans for Gun Safety Foundation)

http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#america

Note to Unspeakable: I appreciate any efforts to keep guns out of the hands of inexperienced and careless users. To me the best way to do this is to ristrict private citizens from purchasing them as it is very easy to obtain fake ID.

Note to ARF: Double check your links some of them lead to unrelated sites.

Note to Kecibukia: I'm not even going to bother with your posts anymore as it is obvious your only interest is to "paraphrase" my words to fit your narrow minded view of people who disagree with you.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_cap

Wow, the US is #24.....according to Oye oye and Canduck Heaven we're supposed to be #1 because of our abundance of small arms...

:rolleyes:
If you try a little harder, you'll be number 1? With firearm deaths you are number 4. Therefore firearms play a big part of the total. 70% of US murders are with firearms. Only 26% in Canada.

The same way all the Canadian "get tough on gun" laws have made Toronto safer. Oh Wait......
Toronto 2.5 Million people. Number of murders per year about 60. Of those, about 40 with guns.

I challenge you to give me any stat from any large US city with CCW that could come even close to those numbers.

Number of murders comitted with firearms in Canada = 26%

Number of murders comitted with firearms in US = 70%

Toronto 2.5 Million people. Number of murders per year about 60. Of those, about 40 with guns.

I challenge you to give me any stat from any large US city with CCW that could come even close to those numbers.

Number of murders comitted with firearms in Canada = 26%

Number of murders comitted with firearms in US = 70%

We're not talking about the US Canuck. I recognize that the US has a severe crime problem. However it's not related to guns.

The Canadian 1.5 billion dollar plus gun registry and associated laws were supposed to put a stop to gun crime in Canada. Why isn't it working? Why don't all Canadians agree that it's a good idea?

If you try a little harder, you'll be number 1? With firearm deaths you are number 4. Therefore firearms play a big part of the total. 70% of US murders are with firearms. Only 26% in Canada.

How many of those are legally owned? How many more murders would occur if Law abiding citizens weren't allowed to defend themselves?

[url]
Note to Kecibukia: I'm not even going to bother with your posts anymore as it is obvious your only interest is to "paraphrase" my words to fit your narrow minded view of people who disagree with you.

Translation: I have nothing to back up my arguements so I'll attack the poster.

Id should be biometric, and if it was it would be imposible to fake.


http://neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#america

Note to Unspeakable: I appreciate any efforts to keep guns out of the hands of inexperienced and careless users. To me the best way to do this is to ristrict private citizens from purchasing them as it is very easy to obtain fake ID.

Note to ARF: Double check your links some of them lead to unrelated sites.

Note to Kecibukia: I'm not even going to bother with your posts anymore as it is obvious your only interest is to "paraphrase" my words to fit your narrow minded view of people who disagree with you.

With all that gun control shouldn't it be 0% ?



Toronto 2.5 Million people. Number of murders per year about 60. Of those, about 40 with guns.

I challenge you to give me any stat from any large US city with CCW that could come even close to those numbers.

Number of murders comitted with firearms in Canada = 26%

Number of murders comitted with firearms in US = 70%

With all that gun control shouldn't it be 0% ?

Another question is "What crime levels "before" the new gun control measures?" Did they cause a reduction in crime or did they have little to no effect?

Toronto 2.5 Million people. Number of murders per year about 60. Of those, about 40 with guns.

I challenge you to give me any stat from any large US city with CCW that could come even close to those numbers.

Number of murders comitted with firearms in Canada = 26%

Number of murders comitted with firearms in US = 70%

In order for those statistics to mean ANYTHING you are going to have to distinguish between Justifiable homicides, homicides, and criminal-on-criminal murder.

I will bet that if you don't count criminal on criminal (Hey, that's a GOOD THING! Let them exterminate themselves. Save the state some money!) and Justifiable homicide (Another good thing-more criminals dying as a result of their deeds is ALWAYS a good thing!) those states would be much lower.

Id should be biometric, and if it was it would be imposible to fake.

ARF has mentioned he is under 21 so he buys from a private dealer, would private dealers check for this?

Translation: I have nothing to back up my arguements so I'll attack the poster.

Girl, 6, kills brother with gun

Associated Press in Montgomery City
Wednesday August 3, 2005
The Guardian

A girl aged six accidentally shot and killed her two-year-old brother while playing with their father's gun at their home in Montgomery City, Missouri.
The bullet first hit the girl in the foot before killing Chase Yordt. It was unclear where she had found the handgun, a highway patrol sergeant, Paul Reinsch, said yesterday.
The father, who has not been identified, is employed by the county jail, but the gun was not a county-issued weapon, according to a sheriff's officer, Matt Schoo. "It's a tragic accident," he added.
The case was being reviewed to determine brought any charges would be made against the parents, Sgt Reinsch said. The father was working at the time of the shooting on Sunday, while the mother was at home.

We're not talking about the US Canuck. I recognize that the US has a severe crime problem. However it's not related to guns.

The Canadian 1.5 billion dollar plus gun registry and associated laws were supposed to put a stop to gun crime in Canada. Why isn't it working? Why don't all Canadians agree that it's a good idea?

The same reason American drug laws aren't working.

Unless the laws are agreed upon by neighbours to the south, smuggling will undo the whole thing. Note that the more money the American government has spent on its War on Drugs, the more people are doing drugs. I'd contend that this parallels the Canadian gun policy. While we try to control guns to the best of our ability, inevitably we need to cut down the demand for guns instead of the supply of them.

Girl, 6, kills brother with gun

A clear case of parental irresponsebility. Tragic and preventable.

A couple returning to their Bakersfield, Calif., home, found a man in their yard, beating their dogs. When he was told to leave, he attacked the husband. The wife retrieved a gun and fired two warning shots, which the attacker ignored. The wife then fired a shot that wounded the man, who was taken into custody by police to face charges of animal cruelty and assault with a deadly weapon. (KGET, Bakersfield, Calif., 8/19/05)

The Modesto Bee, Modesto, CA, 08/07/04
Candy Mitchell of Waterford, California, started losing sleep after she learned that her ex-boyfriend was released from jail. He had served only two months of a six-month sentence for physically abusing her, so it did not seem like a coincidence when, night after night, she heard strange noises in her back yard and banging on her bedroom walls. Despite repeated calls to the police, no prowler was ever found. But the night Mitchell heard someone enter her home, she grabbed the gun she kept next to her bed and, when she saw a man heading for her daughter's room, fired several times. Her ex-boyfriend, John 'Bud' Russell, stumbled outside. When police arrived, they found Russell dead in his truck. Mitchell later said, "I could not imagine any reason he'd be in my house but to kill me."

Daily News, Woodland Hills, CA, 4/24/98
As she entered her apartment one afternoon, 18-year-old Karen Walkden was followed and confronted by her landlord, with whom she had earlier had a dispute. According to police, Walkden said the man made certain comments that led her to believe he was going to sexually assault her. When Walkden told the man to leave, he grabbed her, police said. She then ran into another room and retrieved a shotgun that she had purchased only weeks earlier for home protection. Walkden fired one shot into the man's chest. Within 10 minutes, he was pronounced dead by paramedics.

The same reason American drug laws aren't working.

Unless the laws are agreed upon by neighbours to the south, smuggling will undo the whole thing. Note that the more money the American government has spent on its War on Drugs, the more people are doing drugs. I'd contend that this parallels the Canadian gun policy. While we try to control guns to the best of our ability, inevitably we need to cut down the demand for guns instead of the supply of them.

You assume I agree w/ US drug laws or approve of our southern border control.

How will you cut down the demand for criminals wanting guns?

You assume I agree w/ US drug laws or approve of our southern border control.

How will you cut down the demand for criminals wanting guns?

How will you cut down the demand for drugs?

Oddly enough, I'd say the answer to both of these questions is an increase in wealth and education, along with a better distribution of these things. Note the stipulation of distribution. America is one of the richest countries in the world, and it hasn't saved it from these woes, but at the same time, America suffers from areas of extreme poverty, which do not exist to as great an extent in Canada. Also, America's education system does lag behind the rest of the developed world. Last time I checked it was something like 18th while Canada's was 5th.

Weekend of gun violence shocks America
Suzanne Goldenberg and Associated Press in Washington
Monday March 14, 2005
The Guardian

A boy aged two was shot in the head by his four-year-old brother after a squabble over a toy and a churchgoer opened fire on fellow worshippers, killing seven of them, in a weekend of gun violence across America.
Police said the two boys had been squabbling in their Houston home when the younger child threw a toy at his brother. The older sibling went into his mother's room and took a loaded gun from her bag, shooting his brother once in the temple. The bullet passed through the child's head.
"The four-year-old was angry ... He went and got the gun, put it to his brother's head and shot the gun," police sergeant Cameron Grysen told the Houston Chronicle.
The boy was reported to be in a critical condition at Houston's Ben Taub hospital.
His older brother did not appear to understand what he had done, Mr Grysen told the paper. "He's wondering where his brother is, and when his brother is coming back," Mr Grysen said.
The boys' mother told police she had bought the gun because of a series of burglaries in her neighbourhood, and that she usually kept it in a safe place. It was unclear whether she will face charges. Under Texas law, children below the age of 10 cannot be charged in a criminal case.
In Wisconsin, a man described by neighbours as a quiet and devout churchgoer opened fire at a weekend service, killing eight people, including himself, and wounding four others.
The shootings took place at a Sheraton hotel just outside Milwaukee, where the Living Church of God congregation meets for services every Saturday. Press reports said yesterday that the gunman paused at least once to reload his handgun as churchgoers sought cover, or tried to protect family members. The dead included two boys aged 15 and 17, a 72-year-old man and a 55-year-old woman. Three men aged from 44 to 58 died in hospital.
Police named the killer as Terry Ratzmann, 44. They said they had not found a clear motive for the killings.
However, officials said they were looking into reports that Ratzmann became upset during a church service a few weeks ago and walked out, and that he also may have been about to lose his job.
About 50-60 people were sitting in a meeting room when Ratzmann walked in from the back and started firing, Police Chief Daniel Tushaus said.
"At this point, we're unable to determine if he had specific targets or he just shot at random," police captain Phil Horter said.
Neighbours said Ratzmann was a devout churchgoer and avid gardener who built his own greenhouse and shared homegrown vegetables with his neighbours.
In Atlanta, a suspect who set off a huge manhunt following the courthouse shootings of a judge, a court stenographer and a police officer is expected to appear in court today. Brian Nichols, 33, surrendered to authorities on Saturday, waving a white cloth. Police said he killed an immigration official and held a woman hostage for hours before giving himself up.

Accidents with guns will happen just like accidents with anything can happen. You cannot prevent accidents from occuring but you can minimize your chances of an accident by having proper training.

How will you cut down the demand for drugs?

Oddly enough, I'd say the answer to both of these questions is an increase in wealth and education, along with a better distribution of these things. Note the stipulation of distribution. America is one of the richest countries in the world, and it hasn't saved it from these woes, but at the same time, America suffers from areas of extreme poverty, which do not exist to as great an extent in Canada. Also, America's education system does lag behind the rest of the developed world. Last time I checked it was something like 18th while Canada's was 5th.


I wouldn't "cut down on the demand", I'ld remove the criminal element by legalizing most and taxing. Similar to alchohol and cigarettes w/ severe penalties for abuse.

While I disagree w/ the results of standardized testing, I do agree w/ improving education in general.

Weekend of gun violence shocks America
Suzanne Goldenberg and Associated Press in Washington
Monday March 14, 2005
The Guardian



Another case of parental irresponsibility and several cases of criminal conduct.

The Record, Stockton, CA, 2/18/95
A Stockton, California, real estate agent put an end to an attempted rape, after a man posing as a potential home buyer attacked her in a model home. Crumpling to the floor, the realtor drew a .380 from her purse, forcing the man to flee. Pursuing him outside, the woman fired several shots at the man, missing him as he jumped in his car. She halted his escape by shooting out one of his tires and with the help of some nearby construction workers, held the thug for police. The would-be rapist is being investigated in connection with a similar 1993 attack on a female real estate agent.

Daily News, Los Angeles, CA, 9/10/94

Criminals have tried to break into Susan Kaleta's Winnetka, California, home twice this year. So Kaleta installed an alarm system. The next time she heard someone trying to break in, she hit the panic button on the alarm and called 911. The intruder, undaunted by the screeching siren, found her in the bedroom with the phone to her ear and a gun in her hand. He advanced. She fired twice, critically wounding him. Police said the intruder was responsible for two earlier break-in attempts at Kaleta's home.

The News-Gazette, Champaign, IL, 9/20/89
A 19-year-old Champaign, Ill., woman heard a knock at her door early in the morning and, thinking it was a friend, she opened it to find a stranger asking to use the phone. The man pretended to make a call, and when the woman asked him to leave he began to walk toward her. The intruder backed her into the bedroom, but the resident turned the tables by drawing a handgun from a holster on the headboard. She forced the man from her home and called police.

The Dickenson Star, Clintwood, VA, 12/22/04
As Clyde Colley looked down at the gunshot wound in his leg and then up at his wife, he decided that if he did not do something, they would both die. Almost two hours earlier, two men had broken into their Sandlick, Va., home, shot Mr. Colley and ordered the elderly couple to get on the floor. As one of the intruders held the couple at gunpoint, the other ransacked the house. Finally, Colley said that he was not feeling well and needed to go to lie down. This excuse gave him enough time to get to his gun, which he fired twice, killing one intruder and sending the other fleeing into the night. As their phone lines had been cut, Mrs. Colley was forced to run down the driveway and flag down help. Police later apprehended the surviving intruder, Mazel Sexton, and charged him with numerous felony counts. Colley was not expected to be charged in the death of the intruder, who was identified as Hubert Howard, Jr.



The FBI reports that the nation's total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 200312 and in the first six months of 2004.13 In 2003, the violent crime rate fell to a 27-year low, lower than any time since 1976. Murder rates, while fluctuating slightly, have been lower in recent years than at any time since 1965. The 2003 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 37%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 43%; rape, 24%; robbery, 48%; and aggravated assault, 32%.

(www.ojp.usdoj.gov./bjs/pub/press/cv03pr.htm

Accidents with guns will happen just like accidents with anything can happen. You cannot prevent accidents from occuring but you can minimize your chances of an accident by having proper training.

March 7, 2001: WILLIAMSPORT, Pennsylvania -- An eighth-grade girl has been arrested after a shooting at a Bishop Neumann Junior-Senior High School, a Roman Catholic school in Williamsport, Pennsylvania that left another 8th grade girl wounded. She says that the shooting was due to repeated teasing. BACK TO MAP



May 11, 2000: A seventh-grade student who left the Prairie Grove Junior High school Prairie Grove, Arkansas in an apparent fit of rage and a police officer were injured Thursday after shooting each other in an altercation in a hay field north of the student's school. BACK TO MAP

February 29, 2000: 6-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant is identified as a 6-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun. Mount Morris Township, Mich. BACK TO MAP



Dec. 6, 1999: A 13-year-old student in Fort Gibson, Okla., allegedly arrived at school and opened fire with his father's 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. There were no life-threatening injuries but five of his classmates were injured, four from gunshot wounds and a fifth who suffered bruises in the chaos. More Info or BACK TO MAP

Nov. 19, 1999: A 12-year-old boy allegedly shot and killed a female classmate at the end of lunch hour outside a middle school in Deming, N.M., about 33 miles from the Mexican border. The boy was wearing a camouflage jacket when he allegedly fired the single shot from a .22-caliber handgun. BACK TO MAP

April 20, 1999: Two young men wearing long, black trench coats opened fire in a suburban high school in Littleton, Colo., injuring as many as 20 students. In all, 15 were killed, including the two gunmen. BACK TO MAP

June 15, 1998: A male teacher and a female guidance counselor are shot in a hallway at a Richmond, Va., high school. The man suffers an injury to the abdomen that wasn’t life threatening; the woman is reportedly grazed. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: 15-year-old boy shot six classmates at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia a suburban of Atlanta. He used weapons he stole from a locked gun cabinet in his home. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old student in Springfield, Ore., expelled the day before for bringing a gun to school, allegedly opens fire in the school cafeteria. Two students are killed. The suspect’s parents are later found shot dead in their home. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: Three sixth-grade boys had a “hit list” and were plotting to kill fellow classmates on the last day of school in a sniper attack during a false fire alarm, police in St. Charles, Mo., say. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old boy dies from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in Onalaska, Wash. Earlier in the day, the boy boarded a high school bus with a gun in hand, ordered his girlfriend off the bus and took her to his home, where he shot himself. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old girl is shot and wounded at a suburban Houston high school when a gun in the backpack of a 17-year-old classmate goes off in a biology class. The boy is charged with a third-degree felony for taking a gun to school. BACK TO MAP

May 19, 1998: Three days before his graduation, an 18-year-old honor student allegedly opens fire in a parking lot at Lincoln County High School in Fayetteville, Tenn., killing a classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend. BACK TO MAP

April 28, 1998: Two teenage boys are shot to death and a third is wounded as they played basketball at a Pomona, Calif., elementary school hours after classes had ended. A 14-year-old boy is charged; the shooting is blamed on rivalry between two groups of youths. BACK TO MAP

April 24, 1998 : A 48-year-old science teacher is shot to death in front of students at graduation dance in Edinboro, Pa. A 14-year-old student at James W. Parker Middle School is charged. BACK TO MAP

March 24, 1998: Four girls and a teacher are shot to death and 10 others wounded during a false fire alarm at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark., when two boys, ages 11 and 13, open fire from the woods. Both are convicted in juvenile court of murder and can be held up to age 21. BACK TO MAP

Dec. 15, 1997: Stamps, Arkansas - An AR eighth grader was arrested and charged as an adult after he confessed to shooting and wounded two of his fellow students as he hid in the woods outside of a high school.
BACK TO MAP


Dec. 1, 1997: Three students are killed and five others wounded while they take part in a prayer circle in a hallway at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky. A 14-year-old student pleads guilty but mentally ill to murder and is serving life in prison. One of the wounded girls is left paralyzed. BACK TO MAP

Oct. 1, 1997: A 16-year-old outcast in Pearl, Miss., is accused of killing his mother, then going to Pearl High School and shooting nine students. Two of them die, including the suspect's ex-girlfriend. The 16-year-old is sentenced to life in prison. Two others await trial on accessory charges. BACK TO MAP

Feb. 19, 1997: A 16-year-old student opens fire with a shotgun in a common area at the Bethel, Alaska, high school, killing the principal and a student. Two other students are wounded. Authorities later accuse two other students of knowing the shootings would take place. Evan Ramsey was sentenced to two 99-year terms. BACK TO MAP

Feb. 2, 1996: A 14-year-old boy wearing a trench coat walks into algebra class with a hunting rifle and allegedly opens fire, killing the teacher and two students. A third student is injured during the shooting at a junior high school in Moses Lake, Wash.

March 7, 2001: WILLIAMSPORT, Pennsylvania -- An eighth-grade girl has been arrested after a shooting at a Bishop Neumann Junior-Senior High School, a Roman Catholic school in Williamsport, Pennsylvania that left another 8th grade girl wounded. She says that the shooting was due to repeated teasing. BACK TO MAP



May 11, 2000: A seventh-grade student who left the Prairie Grove Junior High school Prairie Grove, Arkansas in an apparent fit of rage and a police officer were injured Thursday after shooting each other in an altercation in a hay field north of the student's school. BACK TO MAP

February 29, 2000: 6-year-old Kayla Rolland shot dead at Buell Elementary School near Flint, Mich. The assailant is identified as a 6-year-old boy with a .32-caliber handgun. Mount Morris Township, Mich. BACK TO MAP



Dec. 6, 1999: A 13-year-old student in Fort Gibson, Okla., allegedly arrived at school and opened fire with his father's 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. There were no life-threatening injuries but five of his classmates were injured, four from gunshot wounds and a fifth who suffered bruises in the chaos. More Info or BACK TO MAP

Nov. 19, 1999: A 12-year-old boy allegedly shot and killed a female classmate at the end of lunch hour outside a middle school in Deming, N.M., about 33 miles from the Mexican border. The boy was wearing a camouflage jacket when he allegedly fired the single shot from a .22-caliber handgun. BACK TO MAP

April 20, 1999: Two young men wearing long, black trench coats opened fire in a suburban high school in Littleton, Colo., injuring as many as 20 students. In all, 15 were killed, including the two gunmen. BACK TO MAP

June 15, 1998: A male teacher and a female guidance counselor are shot in a hallway at a Richmond, Va., high school. The man suffers an injury to the abdomen that wasn’t life threatening; the woman is reportedly grazed. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: 15-year-old boy shot six classmates at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia a suburban of Atlanta. He used weapons he stole from a locked gun cabinet in his home. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old student in Springfield, Ore., expelled the day before for bringing a gun to school, allegedly opens fire in the school cafeteria. Two students are killed. The suspect’s parents are later found shot dead in their home. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: Three sixth-grade boys had a “hit list” and were plotting to kill fellow classmates on the last day of school in a sniper attack during a false fire alarm, police in St. Charles, Mo., say. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old boy dies from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head in Onalaska, Wash. Earlier in the day, the boy boarded a high school bus with a gun in hand, ordered his girlfriend off the bus and took her to his home, where he shot himself. BACK TO MAP

May 21, 1998: A 15-year-old girl is shot and wounded at a suburban Houston high school when a gun in the backpack of a 17-year-old classmate goes off in a biology class. The boy is charged with a third-degree felony for taking a gun to school. BACK TO MAP

May 19, 1998: Two boys are suspended from school in Johnston, R.I., after being accused of writing and handing out threatening notes to classmates. The notes said things such as, “All your friends are dead.” The boys are ordered to remain out of school until they have been evaluated to determine whether they are dangerous. BACK TO MAP

May 19, 1998: Three days before his graduation, an 18-year-old honor student allegedly opens fire in a parking lot at Lincoln County High School in Fayetteville, Tenn., killing a classmate who was dating his ex-girlfriend. BACK TO MAP

April 28, 1998: Two teenage boys are shot to death and a third is wounded as they played basketball at a Pomona, Calif., elementary school hours after classes had ended. A 14-year-old boy is charged; the shooting is blamed on rivalry between two groups of youths. BACK TO MAP

April 24, 1998 : A 48-year-old science teacher is shot to death in front of students at graduation dance in Edinboro, Pa. A 14-year-old student at James W. Parker Middle School is charged. BACK TO MAP

March 24, 1998: Four girls and a teacher are shot to death and 10 others wounded during a false fire alarm at Westside Middle School in Jonesboro, Ark., when two boys, ages 11 and 13, open fire from the woods. Both are convicted in juvenile court of murder and can be held up to age 21. BACK TO MAP

Dec. 15, 1997: Stamps, Arkansas - An AR eighth grader was arrested and charged as an adult after he confessed to shooting and wounded two of his fellow students as he hid in the woods outside of a high school.
BACK TO MAP


Dec. 1, 1997: Three students are killed and five others wounded while they take part in a prayer circle in a hallway at Heath High School in West Paducah, Ky. A 14-year-old student pleads guilty but mentally ill to murder and is serving life in prison. One of the wounded girls is left paralyzed. BACK TO MAP

Oct. 1, 1997: A 16-year-old outcast in Pearl, Miss., is accused of killing his mother, then going to Pearl High School and shooting nine students. Two of them die, including the suspect's ex-girlfriend. The 16-year-old is sentenced to life in prison. Two others await trial on accessory charges. BACK TO MAP

Feb. 19, 1997: A 16-year-old student opens fire with a shotgun in a common area at the Bethel, Alaska, high school, killing the principal and a student. Two other students are wounded. Authorities later accuse two other students of knowing the shootings would take place. Evan Ramsey was sentenced to two 99-year terms. BACK TO MAP

Feb. 2, 1996: A 14-year-old boy wearing a trench coat walks into algebra class with a hunting rifle and allegedly opens fire, killing the teacher and two students. A third student is injured during the shooting at a junior high school in Moses Lake, Wash.

Congrats, these are not accidents; just a result of kids with issues and poor parenting.

*snip*.

We can keep this up all day.

Howabout I just post a site w/ hundreds of examples:

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2004_06_01_archive.html

And these are just the last two years.

Oh look, another one:

http://www.kimdutoit.com/ee/index.php/rant/index1/C6/

The FACT remains that there are more defensive uses than criminal uses of firearms in the US each year.

Canada City']Congrats, these are not accidents; just a result of kids with issues and poor parenting.

The point is guns are dangerous and impossible to keep out of the hands of irresponsible, incompetent and/or emotionally imbalanced people as long as they are produced for consumers and private owners.

Canada City']Congrats, these are not accidents; just a result of kids with issues and poor parenting.

Wonder what anti-gun website he got these from?

*snip*

Ty! You prove my point about accidents! Also, you just proved irresponsibility. And a third Congratulations for disproving your own hypothesis.

The point is guns are dangerous and impossible to keep out of the hands of irresponsible, incompetent and/or emotionally imbalanced people as long as they are produced for consumers and private owners.

Since they have already been produced and are in the hands of irresponsible, incompetent and/or emotionally imbalanced people , how will taking them away from those who are responsible, competant and emotionally balanced going to stop crime?

What about those individuals who have used firearms to protect themselves from criminals not armed but physically stronger?

The point is guns are dangerous and impossible to keep out of the hands of irresponsible, incompetent and/or emotionally imbalanced people as long as they are produced for consumers and private owners.

So...you would rather take away guns from law abiding citzens so the psychos and emotionally imbalanced people could use knives or blunt objects instead?

I rather get shot in the head then a blade going through my body several times.

How will you cut down the demand for drugs?

Oddly enough, I'd say the answer to both of these questions is an increase in wealth and education, along with a better distribution of these things. Note the stipulation of distribution. America is one of the richest countries in the world, and it hasn't saved it from these woes, but at the same time, America suffers from areas of extreme poverty, which do not exist to as great an extent in Canada. Also, America's education system does lag behind the rest of the developed world. Last time I checked it was something like 18th while Canada's was 5th.

Better dsitribution of these things? Sounds like you are defining the motto of looters in LA right now. "If ita aint mine then Isa gonna takke it"

Noone deserves anything....the material things you earn in this world you must work for.

I wouldn't "cut down on the demand", I'ld remove the criminal element by legalizing most and taxing. Similar to alchohol and cigarettes w/ severe penalties for abuse.

While I disagree w/ the results of standardized testing, I do agree w/ improving education in general.

How about assault weapons?

I seriously doubt you are going to need an assault weapon for self-defense, but the current administration has allowed the ban on assault weapons to lapse?

Besides, taxation can't cut down on demand. Any economist will point out that the more you tax the greater the risk of opening a black market. The market will balance itself as long as the consumers have demand, and price cannot directly affect demand, as it is determined by demand. Basically, if the price goes up, the basic demand will still exist. Smugglers and the black market will still target those people and we won't have gotten except to punish those who buy their guns legally, which is the exact argument used by people who are opposed to gun control: it punishes the innocent while doing nothing to stop the criminals.

How about assault weapons?

I seriously doubt you are going to need an assault weapon for self-defense, but the current administration has allowed the ban on assault weapons to lapse?

And you know what? It did nothing in regards to Assault weapons as the crooks still were able to get their hands on them.

Ty! You prove my point about accidents! Also, you just proved irresponsibility. And a third Congratulations for disproving your own hypothesis.

My thesis is that guns are dangerous and should be eliminated. If gun wounds are caused by accident, or by irresponsible people this does not disprove my statement. This does disprove the theory that proper training and storage of guns will prevent them from being used to harm innocent people.

Also the AGS Foundation was one of my sources for the statistics provided.

The Americans for Gun Safety Foundation is a not-for-profit organization that supports the rights of Americans who own firearms for sport, protection, and collection.

And you know what? It did nothing in regards to Assault weapons as the crooks still were able to get their hands on them.

Except there is evidence to show that a lot of weapons are obtained by taking them from law-abiding citizens, which means that a ban on assault weapons does make it tougher for criminals to get access to them.

Canada City']So...you would rather take away guns from law abiding citzens so the psychos and emotionally imbalanced people could use knives or blunt objects instead?

I rather get shot in the head then a blade going through my body several times.

If knives had no practical purpose beyond taking life, then I would propose those be banned as well.

How about assault weapons?

I seriously doubt you are going to need an assault weapon for self-defense, but the current administration has allowed the ban on assault weapons to lapse?

Then why do the Police need "assault weapons"?After all, you don't think they're needed for self-defense RIGHT? They're VERY good weapons-somewhat accurate, reliable, and cost pennies to use, although they are expensive to purchase.Do you need a v8 car? You don't need those, you only need a 4 cylinder foreign econobox. Only the police should have V8 cars so they can catch up with criminals! :rolleyes:

FYI I am building my own "assault weapon"-a Romanian AIM-63. Why? I'm a collector, and I want to have the MOST CAPABLE weapon to defend myself. Plus if there ever was a total gun ban the skills I'd learn from building my own woud come in handy. My SKS and M1 are good weapons, however they were obsolete in the 1950's and it's hightime I upgraded and upgunned to a new weapon system that shares ammo with my old ones. I am also purchasing a brand new Bulgarian SAM-7, which is the current rifle used by the Iraqi National guard :D . It's a BEAUITFUL weapon with gracefull lines and rock-solid reliability and a great finish.


Besides, taxation can't cut down on demand. Any economist will point out that the more you tax the greater the risk of opening a black market. The market will balance itself as long as the consumers have demand, and price cannot directly affect demand, as it is determined by demand. Basically, if the price goes up, the basic demand will still exist. Smugglers and the black market will still target those people and we won't have gotten except to punish those who buy their guns legally, which is the exact argument used by people who are opposed to gun control: it punishes the innocent while doing nothing to stop the criminals.

www.awbansunset.com

I'll post some pics of my project here in a minute.

My thesis is that guns are dangerous and should be eliminated. If gun wounds are caused by accident, or by irresponsible people this does not disprove my statement. This does disprove the theory that proper training and storage of guns will prevent them from being used to harm innocent people.

Actually, properly stored guns and training can prevent many gun accidents so no, it doesn't disprove it. However, when you don't teach your child about the power of the gun, then its that irresponsibility that causes accidents.

Actually, properly stored guns and training can prevent many gun accidents so no, it doesn't disprove it. However, when you don't teach your child about the power of the gun, then its that irresponsibility that causes accidents.

Have you reviewed my posts that provide examples of gun violence? Some of these examples demonstrate how children have gained access to guns that were properly stored and that they were aware of the proper application of the gun, otherwise they would not have hit their targets, which were other human beings.

This is what I bought 2 months ago from www.dpharms.com for 113$ shipped.

http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=wholekit19805jl.jpg

100$, a new receiver, and 3 hours of work and this is what it will be:

http://img293.imageshack.us/my.php?image=aim631ho.jpg

That is gonna be one FINE lookin' rifle. I've already started on some of the basic stuff like re-finishing the wood, drilling out the rivets, and cleaning some of the cosmo out so it won't be so hard to pull the barrel out of the trunnions.

Here is the Bulgarian AK-47 which is what the Iraqi National Guard uses. The rifles are cold-war surplus, as you can tell from the gas blocks that these are not the currently made Bulgarian rifles.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/3717/ingwithbulgarianakandrpg2ub.jpg

This is the US made civilian legal (IE no 3rd selector IE full-auto) Arsenal USA SAM-7.

http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/1025/sam9fk.jpg

Have you reviewed my posts that provide examples of gun violence?

Yes and your point?

Some of these examples demonstrate how children have gained access to guns that were properly stored and that they were aware of the proper application of the gun, otherwise they would not have hit their targets, which were other human beings.

Are you sure they were aware of the proper application? Also, why was the gun loaded in that stored area? I know I know, guns are no good unless armed but I would never leave an armed gun around in a stored place during the day.

Have you reviewed my posts that provide examples of gun violence? Some of these examples demonstrate how children have gained access to guns that were properly stored and that they were aware of the proper application of the gun, otherwise they would not have hit their targets, which were other human beings.

Putting them in a bag is NOT PROPER storage. THIS would be a proper storage device for a handgun:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?dept_id=1242&sku=CASE-013&imgid=&mscssid=A4K6P0GQJ9078L2QUBQUENJNTERCERP8

At night I open the safe (Right next to my bed) in case in the night I need to get access to it. During the day I close the door and lock it-problem solved. I have an 8-gun Stack gun cabinet, works great. my only beef is that a few guys who REALLY want it could probably wrap a chain around it and pull it out. When I get a really good job I'll get one of those massive walk-in gunsafes.

I guess I shouldn't mention I have a trunk gun huh?

Yep. I toss my SKS and a bag of stripper clips into the trunk should I come across a coyote while I work on the ranch. Never have come across one yet (I still think they remember from last time) but I might get lucky one day.

How about assault weapons?

I seriously doubt you are going to need an assault weapon for self-defense, but the current administration has allowed the ban on assault weapons to lapse?

Besides, taxation can't cut down on demand. Any economist will point out that the more you tax the greater the risk of opening a black market. The market will balance itself as long as the consumers have demand, and price cannot directly affect demand, as it is determined by demand. Basically, if the price goes up, the basic demand will still exist. Smugglers and the black market will still target those people and we won't have gotten except to punish those who buy their guns legally, which is the exact argument used by people who are opposed to gun control: it punishes the innocent while doing nothing to stop the criminals.

So called "assault weapons" are merely semi-automatics that "look like" military weapons. The "ban" actually did very little in the way of restricting firearms.

So you don't tax extremely. Cigarettes in the US are "heavily" taxed and there isn't much of a black market for them.

Have you reviewed my posts that provide examples of gun violence? Some of these examples demonstrate how children have gained access to guns that were properly stored and that they were aware of the proper application of the gun, otherwise they would not have hit their targets, which were other human beings.

So out of 80 million gun owners in the US, you can provide examples of a few dozen over the years where poor parenting and emotionally disturbed teens have taken lives. Have you reviewed my posts that provide examples of where individuals have saved lives w/ legally owned firearms? Reviewed the websites w/ hundreds of examples?

My thesis is that guns are dangerous and should be eliminated. If gun wounds are caused by accident, or by irresponsible people this does not disprove my statement. This does disprove the theory that proper training and storage of guns will prevent them from being used to harm innocent people.

Also the AGS Foundation was one of my sources for the statistics provided.

Your "hypothesis" is that that guns are dangerous and should be eliminated. A thesis or theory would have much more evidence that would back it up than a few examples of criminal misconduct.

As for the AGS:

For the record, AGS has nothing to do with gun safety. It is an organization whose sole founder, a former board member of Handgun Control, Inc., has a highly focused and barely hidden agenda: licensing all American gun owners and registering every firearm they own.

AGS is staffed by the architects of the anti-gun schemes of Bill Clinton and Sen. Charles Schumer. Its president is Jonathan Cowan, who served at the right hand of the self-appointed anti-gun Czar of the Clinton cabinet--HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, whose agenda for fighting crime revolved around threatening nonsensical lawsuits against gun makers. Cowan is assisted by Clinton White House political aide Matt Bennett, and by Jim Kessler, the former gun-control advisor to Senator Charles Schumer.


Jonathan J. Cowan, President -Prior to joining AGS last year, Cowan spent five years with the Clinton Administration, in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As Chief of Staff to HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Cowan played a key role in HUD`s lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Jennifer J. Palmieri, Director of Communications and External Affairs -She came to AGS after working six years in the Clinton White House, where she was a special assistant to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, deputy director of presidential scheduling, and deputy press secretary, ending her tenure as Deputy Assistant to the President.

Francessa J. Wakem, Director of Corporate Affairs -For two years leading up to her new job at AGS, she was chief congressional lobbyist for the MWW Group. Prior to that, she was a deputy national finance director for the Democratic National Committee where she worked for most of the `90s, leading a team that raised more than $90 million for key Democratic elections.

Jim Kessler, Policy and Research Director -Brings a peculiar background to his new role of heading up policy and research for this supposedly "mainstream" gun-safety group. He formerly worked on the legislative staff of possibly the most virulently anti-gun member of the U.S. Senate--Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Edward Hill, senior researcher-A longtime activist in the anti-gun movement, Hill spent three years assisting the plaintiff`s lawyers in the unsuccessful Hamilton v. Accu-Tek case against numerous firearm manufacturers. He is also a veteran of various gun-control initiatives in New York, and advocates "the adoption of `common-sense` gun laws, such as licensing and registration."

Stephanie Albert, general staff-Prior to joining the gun-control movement in her new job at AGS, Albert was a pro-abortion activist in New York, where she was instrumental in recruiting and training young women for that cause. She served for almost three years as a legislative aide to California State Sen. Tom Hayden, a former spouse of Jane Fonda and leader of 1960s radicals Students for a Democratic Society, a group responsible for bombings and other violent acts on campuses across the nation.


And any "pro-gun" cite that states this:

A more comprehensive analysis completed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence also found that the number of banned assault weapons traced in crimes declined by more than 65% and the that the number of assault weapons, including those not banned, has declined by 45% since passage of the assault weapons ban.

doesn't support firearms at all.

Putting them in a bag is NOT PROPER storage. THIS would be a proper storage device for a handgun:

Maybe if you spent as much effort reading as you did in looking for coyotes I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Originally from post 437:

[QUOTE]May 21, 1998: 15-year-old boy shot six classmates at Heritage High School in Conyers, Georgia a suburban of Atlanta. He used weapons he stole from a locked gun cabinet in his home.

Do you not consider a locked gun cabinet to be a proper storage device?

Also, with regards to using the hand bag as a storage device, I agree that this is not a proper storage device, however where is a woman fearing rape and assault from a stranger supposed to keep her gun?

Your "hypothesis" is that that guns are dangerous and should be eliminated. A thesis or theory would have much more evidence that would back it up than a few examples of criminal misconduct.

As for the AGS:

For the record, AGS has nothing to do with gun safety. It is an organization whose sole founder, a former board member of Handgun Control, Inc., has a highly focused and barely hidden agenda: licensing all American gun owners and registering every firearm they own.

AGS is staffed by the architects of the anti-gun schemes of Bill Clinton and Sen. Charles Schumer. Its president is Jonathan Cowan, who served at the right hand of the self-appointed anti-gun Czar of the Clinton cabinet--HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, whose agenda for fighting crime revolved around threatening nonsensical lawsuits against gun makers. Cowan is assisted by Clinton White House political aide Matt Bennett, and by Jim Kessler, the former gun-control advisor to Senator Charles Schumer.


Jonathan J. Cowan, President -Prior to joining AGS last year, Cowan spent five years with the Clinton Administration, in the Department of Housing and Urban Development. As Chief of Staff to HUD Secretary Andrew Cuomo, Cowan played a key role in HUD`s lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Jennifer J. Palmieri, Director of Communications and External Affairs -She came to AGS after working six years in the Clinton White House, where she was a special assistant to Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, deputy director of presidential scheduling, and deputy press secretary, ending her tenure as Deputy Assistant to the President.

Francessa J. Wakem, Director of Corporate Affairs -For two years leading up to her new job at AGS, she was chief congressional lobbyist for the MWW Group. Prior to that, she was a deputy national finance director for the Democratic National Committee where she worked for most of the `90s, leading a team that raised more than $90 million for key Democratic elections.

Jim Kessler, Policy and Research Director -Brings a peculiar background to his new role of heading up policy and research for this supposedly "mainstream" gun-safety group. He formerly worked on the legislative staff of possibly the most virulently anti-gun member of the U.S. Senate--Charles Schumer (D-NY).

Edward Hill, senior researcher-A longtime activist in the anti-gun movement, Hill spent three years assisting the plaintiff`s lawyers in the unsuccessful Hamilton v. Accu-Tek case against numerous firearm manufacturers. He is also a veteran of various gun-control initiatives in New York, and advocates "the adoption of `common-sense` gun laws, such as licensing and registration."

Stephanie Albert, general staff-Prior to joining the gun-control movement in her new job at AGS, Albert was a pro-abortion activist in New York, where she was instrumental in recruiting and training young women for that cause. She served for almost three years as a legislative aide to California State Sen. Tom Hayden, a former spouse of Jane Fonda and leader of 1960s radicals Students for a Democratic Society, a group responsible for bombings and other violent acts on campuses across the nation.


And any "pro-gun" cite that states this:

A more comprehensive analysis completed by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence also found that the number of banned assault weapons traced in crimes declined by more than 65% and the that the number of assault weapons, including those not banned, has declined by 45% since passage of the assault weapons ban.

doesn't support firearms at all.

Yup. You are correct.

Actually, properly stored guns and training can prevent many gun accidents so no, it doesn't disprove it. However, when you don't teach your child about the power of the gun, then its that irresponsibility that causes accidents.

I have provided examples of guns being used with specific intent to cause harm, by people who do not have criminal records.

This is another hole in the argument offered by gun advocates who claim that gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and not criminals. Under the law a person can only be identified as a criminal if they have been convicted of a crime. It is therefore possible for someone with malicious intent to acquire a fire arm, so long as they have yet to be charged of a crime.

[QUOTE=ARF-COM and IBTL]Putting them in a bag is NOT PROPER storage. THIS would be a proper storage device for a handgun:

Maybe if you spent as much effort reading as you did in looking for coyotes I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Originally from post 437:



Do you not consider a locked gun cabinet to be a proper storage device?

Also, with regards to using the hand bag as a storage device, I agree that this is not a proper storage device, however where is a woman fearing rape and assault from a stranger supposed to keep her gun?

How did he steal it? Did he steal the key? Did he pick the lock? Either way, he was breaking the law and obviously had issues beyond what your post from a anti-gun website provides.

As for the woman, her hand bag is in her hands.

I have provided examples of guns being used with specific intent to cause harm, by people who do not have criminal records.

Nice change of subject.

This is another hole in the argument offered by gun advocates who claim that gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and not criminals.

That's because they do only affect us and not the criminals. We've proven that to you by now.

Under the law a person can only be identified as a criminal if they have been convicted of a crime. It is therefore possible for someone with malicious intent to acquire a fire arm, so long as they have yet to be charged of a crime.

And ladies and gentlemen, the change of subject is complete.

[QUOTE=ARF-COM and IBTL]Putting them in a bag is NOT PROPER storage. THIS would be a proper storage device for a handgun:

Maybe if you spent as much effort reading as you did in looking for coyotes I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Originally from post 437:



Do you not consider a locked gun cabinet to be a proper storage device?

Yup. Apparently in this case the adult did not buy a good enough gun cabinet, left the key around, or some other reason. FYI the recent Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms act, if a gunowner stores a gun in a locking anything- small handgun safe, locking drawer, or puts a lock on the handgun, he is exempt from any liability if his firearms are stolen. President Bush will sign it.

Also, with regards to using the hand bag as a storage device, I agree that this is not a proper storage device, however where is a woman fearing rape and assault from a stranger supposed to keep her gun?

Put it in a drawer next to the bed at night, then during the day put it in one of these and tuck it under the bed:

http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/ctd/product.asp?dept_id=1242&sku=CASE-013&imgid=&mscssid=A4K6P0GQJ9078L2QUBQUENJNTERCERP8

I have provided examples of guns being used with specific intent to cause harm, by people who do not have criminal records.

This is another hole in the argument offered by gun advocates who claim that gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and not criminals. Under the law a person can only be identified as a criminal if they have been convicted of a crime. It is therefore possible for someone with malicious intent to acquire a fire arm, so long as they have yet to be charged of a crime.

So you promote the concept of "thought crime" and pre-emptive policing.

I have provided examples of firearms being used by law-abiding citizens to prevent harm being done to themselves or others by people w/ or w/o previous criminal records.

Floridians have been legally able to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) since 1987, and as of 2000, can boast these statistics:

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population.

For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index.

For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,882.7 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 3rd highest.

For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Florida’s rate was 199.0 which ranked the state as having the 5th highest for Robbery.

The state also had 563.2 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 2nd highest position for this crime among the states.

For every 100,000 people there were 1,081.8 Burglaries, which ranks Florida as having the 3rd highest standing among the states.

Floridians have been legally able to Carry a Concealed Weapon (CCW) since 1987, and as of 2000, can boast these statistics:

In the year 2000 Florida had an estimated population of 15,982,378 which ranked the state 4th in population.

For that year the State of Florida had a total Crime Index of 5,694.7 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 2nd highest total Crime Index.

For Violent Crime Florida had a reported incident rate of 812.0 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 1st highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states.

For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,882.7 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 3rd highest.

For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Florida?s rate was 199.0 which ranked the state as having the 5th highest for Robbery.

The state also had 563.2 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 2nd highest position for this crime among the states.

For every 100,000 people there were 1,081.8 Burglaries, which ranks Florida as having the 3rd highest standing among the states.


and the five states w/ the lowest crime are CC states while Wash DC (strict gun control)has been ranked most violent or near the top for the past 15-20
years.

Do you want to get into causality or the stats game again? Florida also has a huge illegal immigrant/gang/ drug problem. None of those would ever play a part though, would they?

BTW, try using updated stats:(2003)

population :17 million + (+1 million plus)
Violent crime: 730.2 (-82)
Property crime: 4452 (-430)
Robbery:185.2 (-14)
AA :500.1(-63)
Burglaries :1002.7 (-81)

and the five states w/ the lowest crime are CC states while Wash DC (strict gun control)has been ranked most violent or near the top for the past 15-20
years.

Do you want to get into causality or the stats game again? Florida also has a huge illegal immigrant/gang/ drug problem. None of those would ever play a part though, would they?

One thing I've learned about CH:

He doesn't see reason and whatever goes against his viewpoint is always wrong no matter the evidence.

I have provided examples of guns being used with specific intent to cause harm, by people who do not have criminal records. (And you want more gun control? You just oxymoroned yourself. What good is it if people don't follow it? I shall state the obvious: THROW THEM IN JAIL AND THROW AWAY THE KEY. That is the easiest way to cut down on crime period.)

This is another hole in the argument offered by gun advocates who claim that gun laws only affect law abiding citizens and not criminals. Under the law a person can only be identified as a criminal if they have been convicted of a crime. It is therefore possible for someone with malicious intent to acquire a fire arm, so long as they have yet to be charged of a crime.

Oye oye, Why are you trying to disarm me? Who have I killed? Who? What crime have I committed? I am a law abiding citizen who has a clean record..and will have one for a long time to come.

Still, I must ask, Why? If you want them so bad, why don't you send your UN thugs to come and get them?

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/5237/unhelmetsmall6js.jpg

Molon Labe!

Nice change of subject.

How am I changing the subject?

Premise: Guns are dangerous they should be eliminated.

Reasons why guns are dangerous:

1. Accidents caused by people who do not know how to handle fire arms.

2. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns legally.

3. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns illegally but from a legal source.

I honestly don't know how to make my argument any clearer to you.

That's because they do only affect us and not the criminals. We've proven that to you by now.

The afore mentioned reasons deal with the use of guns that are aquired from legal gun dealers. The examples I have provided have demonstrated how people legally entitled to own a fire arm either used that fire arm, or allowed someone else to use their fire arms to cause harm to innocent civilians.

And ladies and gentlemen, the change of subject is complete.

:rolleyes:

One thing I've learned about CH:

He doesn't see reason and whatever goes against his viewpoint is always wrong no matter the evidence.
Ahhh the master of the ad hominen. :eek:

You are just upset because you can't win a debate, mainly due because you don't have any facts to support your rhetoric. :eek:

BTW, shouldn't you be in the bow and arrow control section, since you don't even own a gun?

How am I changing the subject?

Because I was argueing about properly stored guns then you go off like a bullet that rhicochied in another direction.

Premise: Guns are dangerous they should be eliminated.

No. Guns in and of themselves aren't dangerous.

Reasons why guns are dangerous:

1. Accidents caused by people who do not know how to handle fire arms.

First accurate thing you've mentioned all night and all through out this thread.

2. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns legally.

Not all the time so why should you punish the many for the deeds of a few?

3. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns illegally but from a legal source.

Goes back to the storage situation again.

I honestly don't know how to make my argument any clearer to you.

How about actually using facts? Nearly everyone in here has used facts to debunk everything you, dobbsworld, and CH have been saying.

The afore mentioned reasons deal with the use of guns that are aquired from legal gun dealers. The examples I have provided have demonstrated how people legally entitled to own a fire arm either used that fire arm, or allowed someone else to use their fire arms to cause harm to innocent civilians.

And what about the M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y of people that acquire them legally and don't use them to cause harm? What about them? What have they done to you to disarm them and leave them at the tender mercy of someone who wants to inflict harm?

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes: back

Oye oye, Why are you trying to disarm me? Who have I killed? Who? What crime have I committed? I am a law abiding citizen who has a clean record..and will have one for a long time to come.

Still, I must ask, Why? If you want them so bad, why don't you send your UN thugs to come and get them?

http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/5237/unhelmetsmall6js.jpg

Molon Labe!

Personally, if you live in the U.S. and continue to live in the U.S. you can do what ever you want with your fire arm. So long as you don't harm any of my relatives, it doesn't affect me since I don't live in the U.S. nor do I have any intention of doing so. The truth is what I would prefer is that the U.S. and other gun manufacturers around the world be banned from producing more weapons. They serve no practical purpose other than to cause harm. If you are concerned about the safety of civilians from thugs, reinvest the subsidies that the government puts into weapons R&D and improve your infrastructure, public transportation, criminal rehabilitation programs and public education.

and the five states w/ the lowest crime are CC states
Ahhh, you mean states like Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire where you have to drive for miles if you want to shoot someone?

Ahhh the master of the ad hominen. :eek:

You are just upset because you can't win a debate, mainly due because you don't have any facts to support your rhetoric. :eek:

BTW, shouldn't you be in the bow and arrow control section, since you don't even own a gun?

No, I just gave up arguing you a long time ago because you don't listen to what the other side has to say. I've seen it and others have seen it. You use facts to dictate your side just like I use the facts to debunk it. Back and forth that goes.

As for owning a gun:

I'M GOING TO OWN ONE WHEN I GET MY OWN PLACE AND NO PERSON IS GOING TO TELL ME I CAN'T

Ahhh, you mean states like Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire where you have to drive for miles if you want to shoot someone?

So you're stating that ME, VT, and NH have no metropolitan/urban areas?
Are you stating that population density has an effect of crime?

Because I was argueing about properly stored guns then you go off like a bullet that rhicochied in another direction.



No. Guns in and of themselves aren't dangerous.



First accurate thing you've mentioned all night and all through out this thread.



Not all the time so why should you punish the many for the deeds of a few?



Goes back to the storage situation again.



How about actually using facts? Nearly everyone in here has used facts to debunk everything you, dobbsworld, and CH have been saying.



And what about the M-A-J-O-R-I-T-Y of people that acquire them legally and don't use them to cause harm? What about them? What have they done to you to disarm them and leave them at the tender mercy of someone who wants to inflict harm?



:rolleyes: back

I've posted an example of a gun that was used to kill innocent people that was properly stored. If that fact ricocheted off in another direction it's probably because your head is so damn thick! ;)

No, I just gave up arguing you a long time ago because you don't listen to what the other side has to say. I've seen it and others have seen it. You use facts to dictate your side just like I use the facts to debunk it. Back and forth that goes.
Ummmm if anyone goes back through your posts, it is plain as day that you don't use "facts" to support your points of discussion. You don't post references, or when you do, they get shredded. :eek:

As for owning a gun:

I'M GOING TO OWN ONE WHEN I GET MY OWN PLACE AND NO PERSON IS GOING TO TELL ME I CAN'T
Since you are always shooting yourself in the foot on these boards, you might want to reconsider that decision. :eek:

I've posted an example of a gun that was used to kill innocent people that was properly stored. If that fact ricocheted off in another direction it's probably because your head is so damn thick! ;)

What your forgetting to mention, as well as everyother gun control advocate, is that GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE but PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

As for owning a gun:

I'M GOING TO OWN ONE WHEN I GET MY OWN PLACE AND NO PERSON IS GOING TO TELL ME I CAN'T

I don't know why but I find this last quote funny and scary at the same time.

So you're stating that ME, VT, and NH have no metropolitan/urban areas?
Are you stating that population density has an effect of crime?
Well, urban areas do tend to have higher crime rates than rural areas.

Ummmm if anyone goes back through your posts, it is plain as day that you don't use "facts" to support your points of discussion. You don't post references, or when you do, they get shredded. :eek:

No they don't get shredded. They only get a leftist spin that has no bases in facts. Period. BTW: my sources come from those that have actually done something in an area that we were debating. If you don't like that, to damn bad. I believe them over the media, liberals, and canadians any day of the week.

Since you are always shooting yourself in the foot on these boards, you might want to reconsider that decision. :eek:

No I won't because I'm going to use my gun only if someone decides to break into my house or apartment.

What your forgetting to mention, as well as everyother gun control advocate, is that GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE but PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!

That's right, people with guns. ;)

Premise: Guns are dangerous they should be eliminated.

False

[/QUOTE]

Reasons why guns are dangerous:

1. Accidents caused by people who do not know how to handle fire arms.

A miniscule percentage of "accidents" that is the direct result of personal irresponsibility.

2. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns legally.

Less than a 1/4 of all criminal misuse of firearms. Most crime is doneby criminals w/ illegal firearms against other criminals.

3. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns illegally but from a legal source.

Miniscule. Over 80% of firearms are obtained illegally through illegal means.

I honestly don't know how to make my argument any clearer to you.

Actually provide data or legitimate sources.



The afore mentioned reasons deal with the use of guns that are aquired from legal gun dealers. The examples I have provided have demonstrated how people legally entitled to own a fire arm either used that fire arm, or allowed someone else to use their fire arms to cause harm to innocent civilians.

Once again, a miniscule percentage of the 80 million legal owners in the US. Punish the criminals.

That's right, people with guns. ;)

THere you see? You actually agree that people kill people. Now that wasn't so hard now was it?

So now that we have established that, why can't those of us who actually follow the law, have to go unarmed against those that are actually armed better than the police?

That's right, people with guns. ;)

So every murder is committed w/ a firearm? Haven't we gone over this before?

How many murders were prevented by people w/ guns?

How am I changing the subject?

Premise: Guns are dangerous they should be eliminated.

Reasons why guns are dangerous:

1. Accidents caused by people who do not know how to handle fire arms.

2. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns legally.

3. Intentional attacks by people who acquired the guns illegally but from a legal source.

I honestly don't know how to make my argument any clearer to you.



The afore mentioned reasons deal with the use of guns that are aquired from legal gun dealers. The examples I have provided have demonstrated how people legally entitled to own a fire arm either used that fire arm, or allowed someone else to use their fire arms to cause harm to innocent civilians.



:rolleyes:

So let's just ban guns huh? What more can we say? Prosecute those who commit crimes with guns (crime in general)!

You are a mere person, Oye oye. You cannot change the constitution because you write emotionally based arguments, nor can you rape us of our right to own guns. It would take an act of god to change it-thank god.

GUNS DON"T KILL PEOPLE but PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!
Well you are partially right. Sometimes the gun causes the death but usually it is the bullets.

Well you are partially right. Sometimes the gun causes the death but usually it is the bullets.

CH, you can't be that stupid. You need someone to pull the trigger so that the bullet ejects from the chamber through the barrel and towards its target.

People kill people. It is that simple.

CH, you can't be that stupid. You need someone to pull the trigger so that the bullet ejects from the chamber through the barrel and towards its target.

People kill people. It is that simple.

You do realize he's baiting you, right?

You do realize he's baiting you, right?

Yea I know he's baiting me.

No they don't get shredded. They only get a leftist spin that has no bases in facts. Period. BTW: my sources come from those that have actually done something in an area that we were debating. If you don't like that, to damn bad. I believe them over the media, liberals, and canadians any day of the week.
So ALL Canadians are wrong huh. :eek:

You do realize he's baiting you, right?
Ummm who is baiting who here?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9550984&postcount=469

THere you see? You actually agree that people kill people. Now that wasn't so hard now was it?

Yes, people with guns kill people. The question is, which do we get rid of the people, or the guns?

So now that we have established that, why can't those of us who actually follow the law, have to go unarmed against those that are actually armed better than the police?

Because people who don't have the intelligence to negotiate their way through life without a gun, should not be trusted to own something that can easily cause harm to others.

CH, you can't be that stupid. You need someone to pull the trigger so that the bullet ejects from the chamber through the barrel and towards its target.

People kill people. It is that simple.
Now I am stupid? You really are running up the score huh?

Perhaps you don't know what CAUSES some people to die?

Try this web site (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/425/425lect12.htm) and it might help you figure it out.

So let's just ban guns huh? What more can we say? Prosecute those who commit crimes with guns (crime in general)!

You are a mere person, Oye oye. You cannot change the constitution because you write emotionally based arguments, nor can you rape us of our right to own guns. It would take an act of god to change it-thank god.

Seeing as how the constitution was drafted in response to emotionally based arguments, seeing as how GW is fueling his support for a war in Iraq with emotionally based arguments, you never know.

Originally Posted by NYAAA
Thats what you get for depending on "tougher laws" and "harsher sentences" for things that are already illegal, i.e. shooting at innocent people. Not one of the people involved in these shootings owned their weapons legally. Making it harder for a decent person to own and live with firearms is a mockery of justice.

And so I have three words: Concealed Carry Reform.

The police aren't there to protect you when retards who believe the rap they listen to start shooting. You are, so shoot back.

This is one of the few things the US has done right. People screamed and moaned about how the streets would run red with blood if a CCW system was implemented - it never happened.

Fun fact - 1 in 10 people shot by police is innocent. 1 in 50 shot by a law-abiding gunowner is innocent. Fancy that._________________________

Holy smokes-DISARM the police! Accidents waiting to happen! nobody but the citizenry deserve to have weapons!



:rolleyes:

Seeing as how the constitution was drafted in response to emotionally based arguments, seeing as how GW is fueling his support for a war in Iraq with emotionally based arguments, you never know.

Such as that underground bunker of Sarin gas artillery shells that was found?

The Constitution was drafted as a response to tyranny by a foreign power.

Oye Oye, if you don't like the fact we can own guns just say so. And go and tell Kofi to try and get them. C'mon, I dare ya.

Perhaps you don't know what CAUSES some people to die?

I do know what causes some people to die. More people die by cancer, drug abuse, car accidents, lightening than they do by guns.