NationStates Jolt Archive

Because 911 doesn't guarantee that help will arrive in time. Here's one of the sadder stories (http://www.local6.com/news/5001811/detail.html) in the news today. One that would have been easily turned around if the woman had shot first and called 911 later.

SUNRISE, Fla. -- Police say an 18-year-old Broward County woman used her cell phone to call 911 for help Monday night, but by the time officers arrived, she had been killed.

Sunrise police said when officer arrived at the apartment building at 5990 N.W. 19th St. just after midnight, Christine Myers was lying dead in a hallway.

Nooo the police will protect you... no need to arm yourself! Some eggs must be broken to make a nice police state omelette!

Maybe people should read the stories of how neighbors defended themselves against predatory armed looters during the collapse of the New Orleans police department.

People who were armed didn't get looted, didn't get raped, didn't get their houses burned, and didn't get killed. An interesting, but fatal surprise for looters.

Next time the government says that you should be prepared for several days of "being on your own", and says to stock up on food, water, and medical supplies for such an emergency, remember that the police are NOT going to show up to protect you during those times. At those times, if you don't have the ability to defend yourself, and are not situated with people who are like minded, you stand a very good chance of being dead.

Maybe they wern't need to defend themselves from armed looters if there wern't so many guns around.

Maybe they wern't need to defend themselves from armed looters if there wern't so many guns around.

Yeah, maybe a young woman can defend herself against a rape gang if they're only armed with baseball bats!

911 doesn't accidentally shoot your daughter when she's sneaking back into the house nor does 911 go off in a toddler's hand.

I'm not against guns. I just have a low opinion of people.

You'll never convince anti-gun people that they're stupid. Had that young woman's parent's raised her right, there's a good chance she'd be alive now. Instead, they raised her badly and she's a corpse. And they got just what they wanted, an anti-gun corpse for a daughter.

Do your kids a favor. Teach them to look out for themselves.

Remember, the best way to end crime, is to put an end to criminals.

Guns are great as long as you don't accidently shoot your kids with them.

The story doesn't have anywhere near enough detail for you to claim that a gun would have saved her. There are a lot of ways the situation can go if you try to defend yourself with a gun. You might protect yourself, or you might turn yourself from a robbery victim to a murder victim.

What about Tazers?

911 doesn't accidentally shoot your daughter when she's sneaking back into the house nor does 911 go off in a toddler's hand.

I'm not against guns. I just have a low opinion of people.

The number of truly "accidental" shootings in the US is very, very, very low.

When you see "deaths" by "firearm" of "children", you are not being shown "accidents". You are being shown the deliberate shootings of young black gang members between the ages of 19 and 21. Hardly children, and hardly accidents.

While one accident is a tragedy, annual firearms accidents that kill children vary between 100 and 200 a year in the US - sometimes lower. Your child is much more likely to be killed on a bicycle, or playing high school football, or riding in your car, or swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.

[QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]911 doesn't accidentally shoot your daughter when she's sneaking back into the house nor does 911 go off in a toddler's hand.[QUOTE]

Only a retard leaves a gun out for a toddler. And how many people shoot their kids because they're sneaking into the house? Zilch. More made up crap from the anti-gun crowd.

Guns are great as long as you don't accidently shoot your kids with them.

Same with knives and accidentally stabbing.

Honestly though, I wonder how many "accidental" gun deaths there really are. People try to make it seem like a gun is just a fragile bomb ready to explode, killing completely innocent people through no fault or lack of responsibility.

[QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]911 doesn't accidentally shoot your daughter when she's sneaking back into the house nor does 911 go off in a toddler's hand.[QUOTE]

Only a retard leaves a gun out for a toddler. And how many people shoot their kids because they're sneaking into the house? Zilch. More made up crap from the anti-gun crowd.

Did you fail to read my ENTIRE post? I guess you were too busy frothing.

A friend of mine from high school was accidentally killed by the family gun, so think before you make insults, please.

The number of truly "accidental" shootings in the US is very, very, very low.

When you see "deaths" by "firearm" of "children", you are not being shown "accidents". You are being shown the deliberate shootings of young black gang members between the ages of 19 and 21. Hardly children, and hardly accidents.

While one accident is a tragedy, annual firearms accidents that kill children vary between 100 and 200 a year in the US - sometimes lower. Your child is much more likely to be killed on a bicycle, or playing high school football, or riding in your car, or swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.

I'd love to see your source for this. I like to be informed. Just by a casual perusing of google, it seems that there is a mountain of information that gun deaths in america are fairly low...and yet still dramatically higher than the rest of the industrialized world.

Again, I'm not for banning guns. I would just like to see more intelligent effort made to keep guns out of the hands of untrained and foolish people.

The number of truly "accidental" shootings in the US is very, very, very low.

When you see "deaths" by "firearm" of "children", you are not being shown "accidents". You are being shown the deliberate shootings of young black gang members between the ages of 19 and 21. Hardly children, and hardly accidents.

While one accident is a tragedy, annual firearms accidents that kill children vary between 100 and 200 a year in the US - sometimes lower. Your child is much more likely to be killed on a bicycle, or playing high school football, or riding in your car, or swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.

So, because black gang members are shooting each other and "falsely" inflating the statistics, it's okay and guns are good?

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [ 1 ] :

* In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
o 214 unintentional
o 1,078 suicides
o 1,990 homicides
o 83 for which the intent could not be determined
o 20 due to legal intervention


Technically, a 19 year old is not a child.

Note the 214 unintentional. These are true accidents.

Suicide is not an accident. Homicide is not an accident. And legal intervention means the police had a legitimate reason to shoot.

The figures vary from year to year.

I think both sides of the debate are wrong. Once guns are out there, there's no point thinking about banning or regulating them as people who want them, especially criminals, will get them easily enough. However, the pro-gun side seem to think that everyone carrying a pistol is some kind of utopia and the end of all crime. If you are defending yourself with a gun, or if it is known that concealed guns are common, criminals just have an incentive to be far more violent so that their victim doesn't have the chance to use their gun.

So, because black gang members are shooting each other and "falsely" inflating the statistics, it's okay and guns are good?

They are not "children" and they are not "accidents". They are engaged in felonious behavior in areas of the country where guns are already forbidden.

There are also laws against the sale of crack and meth. Most of the violence is directly associated with that activity.

They are obviously ignoring the laws.

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [ 1 ] :

* In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
o 214 unintentional
o 1,078 suicides
o 1,990 homicides
o 83 for which the intent could not be determined
o 20 due to legal intervention


Technically, a 19 year old is not a child.

Note the 214 unintentional. These are true accidents.

Suicide is not an accident. Homicide is not an accident. And legal intervention means the police had a legitimate reason to shoot.

The figures vary from year to year.
Also I've heard that medical examiners will sometimes label suicides "accidental" in order to spare the family additional greif and guilt.

[QUOTE=Texsonia]You'll never convince anti-gun people that they're stupid. [QUOTE]

That's simply not true. You personally have managed to convince me that I am of subnormal intelligence purely due to the fact that I do not believe letting any potential pyscho own a weapon designed to kill, not disable, isn't really a bright idea. Guess any doctors or scientists who agree with me are just dumbasses too right?

The 2002 edition of Injury Facts from the National Safety Council reports the following statistics [ 1 ] :

* In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
* This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
* The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
o 214 unintentional
o 1,078 suicides
o 1,990 homicides
o 83 for which the intent could not be determined
o 20 due to legal intervention


Technically, a 19 year old is not a child.

Note the 214 unintentional. These are true accidents.

Suicide is not an accident. Homicide is not an accident. And legal intervention means the police had a legitimate reason to shoot.

The figures vary from year to year.

Excellent, thanks. Now, do you have any statistics on the number of times civilians successfully defend themselves with guns? Also, how many of those homocides (as opposed to murder, an important difference,) were prosecusted as involuntary manslaughter...meaning it was accidental, yet still criminal?

I think both sides of the debate are wrong. Once guns are out there, there's no point thinking about banning or regulating them as people who want them, especially criminals, will get them easily enough. However, the pro-gun side seem to think that everyone carrying a pistol is some kind of utopia and the end of all crime. If you are defending yourself with a gun, or if it is known that concealed guns are common, criminals just have an incentive to be far more violent so that their victim doesn't have the chance to use their gun.

That's true. Personally I think banning guns in America would be a bad idea, but legalising them in the UK or any other country where they were previously banned would be equally bad.

I'd love to see your source for this. I like to be informed. Just by a casual perusing of google, it seems that there is a mountain of information that gun deaths in america are fairly low...and yet still dramatically higher than the rest of the industrialized world.


The majority of the industrualized world doesn't allow their citizens to own guns, or it's severly restricited. If the people can't have them, accidents would be difficult.

A friend of mine from high school was accidentally killed by the family gun,

This is the kind of tragedy that occurs when people don't know how to handle guns. How many people each year are killed by the family car? Proper education and a few brain cells are generally enough to avoid most accidents. I'd be interested to know how he was killed. Most often it can be attributed to stupidity on someone's part.

Of course there is the occasional rogue gun. For some reason some guns go off on a killing spree by themslves. They'll crawl out of their storage place and aim themselves at people and fire all by themsleves.

Guess any doctors or scientists who agree with me are just dumbasses too right?

Sadly yes.

Guns were legal in the UK before the Dunblane massacre.

I happily note that our gun deaths remain very low. Looks like you can ban guns where they were previously legal.

I'm leaving this though. Gun threads are train wrecks with people who congratulate themselves on being in a fucked up society on one side and loons on the other.

I'm leaving this though. Gun threads are train wrecks with people who congratulate themselves on being in a fucked up society on one side and loons on the other.

Just to clarify, which side is fucked up and which side are loons?

Just to clarify, which side is fucked up and which side are loons?

Can't we just agree that we're all fucked up loons?

Just to clarify, which side is fucked up and which side are loons?
Can't we just agree that we're all fucked up loons?

Messerarch has a point...

But the pro-gunners are the fucked up lot and the others are loons for thinking they can solve this by rational debate.

Messerarch has a point...

But the pro-gunners are the fucked up lot and the others are loons for thinking they can solve this by rational debate.

Oh come on. You're anti-guns? Oh well, I'd rather be fucked up than the alternative. It's more fun this way.

Excellent. One random event should dictate policy for 200+ million people. Good call.

Guns were legal in the UK before the Dunblane massacre.

I happily note that our gun deaths remain very low.

That's because noone but criminals have them now. I bet your spacelaser deaths are low too. And I'll bet very few Brits are killed by fusion weapons as well.

So in summary, If you don't have something, you can have accidenal deaths by them. You are a prime example of why public schools should all be burned down.

UK bans guns. And violent crime rises. HAHAHAHAHAH!

BBC News (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4467569.stm)

UK bans guns. And violent crime rises. HAHAHAHAHAH!


http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

Excellent, thanks. Now, do you have any statistics on the number of times civilians successfully defend themselves with guns? Also, how many of those homocides (as opposed to murder, an important difference,) were prosecusted as involuntary manslaughter...meaning it was accidental, yet still criminal?

The first is easy. According to the Kleck study, approx 2.5 million times/year. The DOJ has about 1.5 million/year but recognizes differences between collection techniques used. HCI even acknowledges over 100K/year.

As for the other, I don't think there's stats taken nationally to be able to answer although I could be wrong.

What about Tazers?

I thought you knew, those are supposed to kill even MORE people every year then guns. I mean seriously, doesn't it bug anyone else in here that the anti gun people are now targetting ALL weapons, including non lethal ones? While they want the government to control all of them?

Historically, that's the start of something bad indeed.

Practice..... a well prepared expiranced and disciplined shooter won't be shooting willy nilly at their own kids. Well disclinpled shooters do not allow children to access firearms without adult supervision. Stupid undiscipled shooters give the rest a bad name and a black eye.


Guns are great as long as you don't accidently shoot your kids with them.

What about Tazers?

On average cost over 1000$, are one shot weapons, and have less of a chance of stopping a criminal.

Ironically, they are also banned or heavily regulated in the majority of areas that have the most strick firearm laws.

Guns are great as long as you don't accidently shoot your kids with them.

Whoops, sorry son, didn't mean to shoot you while you were mouthing off--- :mp5:

I told you to do your homework... :sniper:

:) ;) :eek:

Practice..... a well prepared expiranced and disciplined shooter won't be shooting willy nilly at their own kids. Well disclinpled shooters do not allow children to access firearms without adult supervision. Stupid undiscipled shooters give the rest a bad name and a black eye.


But that would totally negate the myth of "thousands of children killed every year" and would encourage parental responsibility over a nanny state.

Shame on you.

On average cost over 1000$, are one shot weapons, and have less of a chance of stopping a criminal.

Ironically, they are also banned or heavily regulated in the majority of areas that have the most strick firearm laws.

That's only with the X-26 model. Minus the one shot thing. Actually, your number of shots is limited by the number of air cartidges you have available. Once you run out of those, it becomes a contact weapon that'll go for 3-400 uses if you have a decent set of batteries in it.

actully no the criminals tend to switch from robbery to burglary as to avoid an armed responce ...better to steal from an emplty house than a potenially armed person. Don't take my word for it check the stats your self which is what I advise all people to do.


I think both sides of the debate are wrong. Once guns are out there, there's no point thinking about banning or regulating them as people who want them, especially criminals, will get them easily enough. However, the pro-gun side seem to think that everyone carrying a pistol is some kind of utopia and the end of all crime. If you are defending yourself with a gun, or if it is known that concealed guns are common, criminals just have an incentive to be far more violent so that their victim doesn't have the chance to use their gun.

yes, education and intelligence aren't necessarily correspondent

[QUOTE=Texsonia]You'll never convince anti-gun people that they're stupid. [QUOTE]

That's simply not true. You personally have managed to convince me that I am of subnormal intelligence purely due to the fact that I do not believe letting any potential pyscho own a weapon designed to kill, not disable, isn't really a bright idea. Guess any doctors or scientists who agree with me are just dumbasses too right?

Why is it that only the pro-gun crowds call the anti-gun people idiots - and not the same thing the other way around?

Testosterone overdose? ;)

UK bans guns. And violent crime rises. HAHAHAHAHAH!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/21/shootings.crash.ap/index.html

Strange, I don't see anything like this in the UK? Is the Nanny State hiding it from us or something?

I ask because I was sure from what I'm told that having a ban on guns means I must live in fear for my very life, incase some crazed loon should run down the street and gun my helpless self down.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/21/shootings.crash.ap/index.html

Strange, I don't see anything like this in the UK? Is the Nanny State hiding it from us or something?

I ask because I was sure from what I'm told that having a ban on guns means I must live in fear for my very life, incase some crazed loon should run down the street and gun my helpless self down.

Just you wait. The US has five times as many inhabitants. Wait five days, and I'm sure it'll happen in the UK too.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/09/21/shootings.crash.ap/index.html

Strange, I don't see anything like this in the UK? Is the Nanny State hiding it from us or something?

I ask because I was sure from what I'm told that having a ban on guns means I must live in fear for my very life, incase some crazed loon should run down the street and gun my helpless self down.

yep the violent crime is on the rise in Britain but it's mostly pub brawls...not really any need to shoot someone over.

Why is it that only the pro-gun crowds call the anti-gun people idiots - and not the same thing the other way around?

Testosterone overdose? ;)

Strange, I've been in several threads where "anti-gunners" have regularly reffered to "pro-gunners" as ignorant, stupid, sociopathic,etc.

It tends to go both ways.

Because anybody voluntarily giving away a RIGHT is an idiot. I'd say the same if the were refering to any right free speech, freedom of religion etc..


Why is it that only the pro-gun crowds call the anti-gun people idiots - and not the same thing the other way around?

Testosterone overdose? ;)

yep the violent crime is on the rise in Britain but it's mostly pub brawls...not really any need to shoot someone over.

and the British Gov't is talking about restricting alcohol.

and the British Gov't is talking about restricting alcohol.

Good idea really. They just let us have all-night pubs, someone needs to deal with that wee fuck-up.

The British government is as conservative as it's always been. Even the left wing democrat socialist "labour" party has wandered rightwards..

..and people keep voting for them!!

The ignorance.. :rolleyes:

Because anybody voluntarily giving away a RIGHT is an idiot. I'd say the same if the were refering to any right free speech, freedom of religion etc..

Wait a minute - do you support laws against torturing children? You do? Well then, you are voluntarily giving up your right to torture children, and by your own admission are a complete and utter half wit.

By the way, despite what the anti intellectuals have to say about how all people who went to college are stupid, just because they themselves were too dumb to get in, generally people who can be educated well enough to become doctors or scientists are intelligent.

911 doesn't accidentally shoot your daughter when she's sneaking back into the house nor does 911 go off in a toddler's hand.

I'm not against guns. I just have a low opinion of people.
Accidental shootings of family members are extremely low. For children under the age of 5, they are more likely to die from drowning in a bucket than being accidentally shot. According to your logic, we should ban buckets.

Wait a minute - do you support laws against torturing children? You do? Well then, you are voluntarily giving up your right to torture children, and by your own admission are a complete and utter half wit.

By the way, despite what the anti intellectuals have to say about how all people who went to college are stupid, just because they themselves were too dumb to get in, generally people who can be educated well enough to become doctors or scientists are intelligent.

Straw man, straw man, let's all knock down the straw man.

Show me where it says you have a right to torture children in the US. I'll show you a federal constitution and dozens of state constitutions that have a right to bear arms.

What was that post earlier about only "pro-gunners" calling people stupid?

The story doesn't have anywhere near enough detail for you to claim that a gun would have saved her. There are a lot of ways the situation can go if you try to defend yourself with a gun. You might protect yourself, or you might turn yourself from a robbery victim to a murder victim.
This is actually not that likely. robbery victims are more likely to be hurt or killed if they don't have a gun to defend themselves than if they do. I just love urban myths like this.

This is actually not that likely. robbery victims are more likely to be hurt or killed if they don't have a gun to defend themselves than if they do. I just love urban myths like this.

That's why it's good to have a

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/bsprotect.jpg

It comes in handy at times.

The fact that someone even poseted the idea that guns are better than the cops tells me that america is in a really bad state right now. What people need to realize is that people owning wepons is the problem not people who don't.

Did you fail to read my ENTIRE post? I guess you were too busy frothing.

A friend of mine from high school was accidentally killed by the family gun, so think before you make insults, please.
BFD. So was one of mine, because the two brothers in question, 16 and 18 age wise, were fucking around with a weapon that was loaded because their parents didn't teach them responsible gun handling and because they were idiots. You do not point a gun at someone unless you mean to shoot. Pure and simple.

Two reasons why the ownership of firearms by LAC's is better than calling 911:

1)Warren v. District of Columbia

"courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community."

2)CASTLE ROCK V. GONZALES

"Colorado law has not created a personal entitlement to enforcement of restraining orders. It does not appear that state law truly made such enforcement mandatory. A well-established tradition of police discretion has long coexisted with apparently mandatory arrest statutes. "

"Even if the statute could be said to make enforcement “mandatory,” that would not necessarily mean that respondent has an entitlement to enforcement."

The fact that someone even poseted the idea that guns are better than the cops tells me that america is in a really bad state right now. What people need to realize is that people owning wepons is the problem not people who don't.

No, criminals committing crimes is the problem.

New Orleans is a prime example. While many loyal, brave officers stayed on the job, over 300 abandoned their fellows and their posts and, in some cases, joined the criminals.

Straw man, straw man, let's all knock down the straw man.

Show me where it says you have a right to torture children in the US. I'll show you a federal constitution and dozens of state constitutions that have a right to bear arms.

What was that post earlier about only "pro-gunners" calling people stupid?

I don't see how that is relevant - he said a right of any kind, not a right listed under the US constitution. My point was simply that not all rights are good, and to suggest it is always idiotic to forego a right is just being silly.

Oh, and I called him stupid, not all pro gunners. There's a difference you see - one involves massive generalisation and the other does not.

I don't see how that is relevant - he said a right of any kind, not a right listed under the US constitution. My point was simply that not all rights are good, and to suggest it is always idiotic to forego a right is just being silly.

Oh, and I called him stupid, not all pro gunners. There's a difference you see - one involves massive generalisation and the other does not.

You called him stupid after he mentions the rights of speech, religion, firearm ownership , etc. and you slippery-sloped that to a "right" to torture children.

If you consider that a "relevant" comparison, have a nice day.

But what else is wrong??

The pro-gun group wants to protect itself (against criminals/the King of England/a corrupt government).
The anti-gun gang wants to lower crime and feel safe.

Why does this not happen in other 'civilised' countries? Especially nations with lower crime rates than the US, and who have also banned gun ownership!

But what else is wrong??

The pro-gun group wants to protect itself (against criminals/the King of England/a corrupt government).
The anti-gun gang wants to lower crime and feel safe.

Why does this not happen in other 'civilised' countries? Especially nations with lower crime rates than the US, and who have also banned gun ownership!

What were the crime rates "before" the bans went into place in these various nations?

Which ones do you define as "civilised"?

In the US, ownership has increased by over 40 million in the last decade while crime rates have decreased.

I'll bet you money that you won't be able to find causality.

What were the crime rates "before" the bans went into place in these various nations?

Which ones do you define as "civilised"?

In the US, ownership has increased by over 40 million in the last decade while crime rates have decreased.

I'll bet you money that you won't be able to find causality.

Here you go (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Crime.html), a little personal opinion on the whole series, and it's actually quite relevant.

I loved this particular quote:

Despite the reports shocking findings the papers cannot stop themselves from making a link between gun ownership and violent crime. Nicholas Rufford comments in the Sunday Times:

"Rape and murder rates are still higher in the United States - where gun ownership is prevalent - but the gap is narrowing."

Similarly, Shenai Raif of PA News comments:

"The less common crimes of murder and rape are higher in America where guns are more prevalent, but the gap is narrowing."

It is astounding that two obviously intelligent professional journalists cannot see the fallacy of their remarks. Yes, gun ownership is more prevalent in the US but the UK has the most restrictive gun laws in the world and the gap is still narrowing. Despite the widespread gun ownership in the US violent crime is falling, in the UK despite the latest gun laws it is increasing. Even now the media cannot even bear to contemplate that legal gun ownership is not the root cause of the US crime problem.

Now isn't that interesting?

I LOVE some of the comments in this -

Listen, guns are great in a sensible, moral, skilled-shot and experienced shooters. Clearly if it's blacks shooting eachother that's just fine. Sure there were a couple of problems here and there but those guys were idiots so we don't count that, and that guy was a involved in some minor crime so he deserved it. Hmm great.

I'm not saying that with guns so widespread in the US now that banning them is the solution but the extent of the blindness from the US gun crowd is just brilliant :D

Here you go (http://members.aol.com/gunbancon/Frames/Crime.html), a little personal opinion on the whole series, and it's actually quite relevant.

I loved this particular quote:



Now isn't that interesting?

Actually, the link is a bit dated. A recent UN survey has Scotland as the most violent, leading the US almost 3 to 1.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

I LOVE some of the comments in this -

Listen, guns are great in a sensible, moral, skilled-shot and experienced shooters. Clearly if it's blacks shooting eachother that's just fine. Sure there were a couple of problems here and there but those guys were idiots so we don't count that, and that guy was a involved in some minor crime so he deserved it. Hmm great.

I'm not saying that with guns so widespread in the US now that banning them is the solution but the extent of the blindness from the US gun crowd is just brilliant :D

Let's see. We have:

Racism
stereotyping
Ad-Hominems &
unsubtantiated insults

That's a convincing post for you.




Daily News, Los Angeles, CA, 9/8/98
According to police, a Lancaster, California, man became enraged when a friend of his wife told him she didn't know where his wife was. Police said the man reacted by stabbing the woman and two other people in the same neighborhood. He was finally stopped by another neighbor who fired once from a shotgun, hitting the man in the abdomen.

Actually, the link is a bit dated. A recent UN survey has Scotland as the most violent, leading the US almost 3 to 1.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

I'd rather be assaulted than shot thanks :)

Actually, the link is a bit dated. A recent UN survey has Scotland as the most violent, leading the US almost 3 to 1.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1786945,00.html

Oh interesting. My apologies.

I'd rather be assaulted than shot thanks :)

And I'ld rather be able to defend myself against someone trying to assault or shoot me , thanks :)

You called him stupid after he mentions the rights of speech, religion, firearm ownership , etc. and you slippery-sloped that to a "right" to torture children.

If you consider that a "relevant" comparison, have a nice day.

He specifically said that anyone who gives up a right is an idiot - which is stupid, because not all "rights" are beneficial. The torture of children was an extreme example simply to point out how wrong that statement was - not a serious comparison at all.

Oh interesting. My apologies.

None needed. It's a pleasure to keep people informed.

If those statistics were anti-guns you'd be onto the massive flaws in a flash.

The figures are very, very different to official police figures, which I'll assume are more reliable than 'phone interviews' :)

people should have guns if they feel safer with them. I agree. police do not come quick enough.

Let's see. We have:

Racism
stereotyping
Ad-Hominems &
unsubtantiated insults

That's a convincing post for you.



Sorry, where was the racism? Or for that matter, the other stuff

He specifically said that anyone who gives up a right is an idiot - which is stupid, because not all "rights" are beneficial. The torture of children was an extreme example simply to point out how wrong that statement was - not a serious comparison at all.

Where is the Right to Torture Children codified? I can show your where the right to keep and bears arms is codified.

And it wasn't an extreme example. It wasn't even an example, because the right never existed. So your statement that "not all rights are beneficial" is inane, since tortuing children isnt' a right that anyone gave up.

I'd rather be assaulted than shot thanks

Good for you. I support your right to whatever sexual fantasies get you off. Other people don't share those fantasies, and don't want to get assaulted. The young woman in the post that started this thread, which you might not have bothered to read, wasn't just assaulted. She was murdered.

But if you want to be assaulted, it's easy to do. Go get drunk and then wander around any bad neighborhood in the US, half clothed. You'll be assaulted presently. Of course you'll probably get murdered afterwards, but you'll be happy knowing you don't own a gun.

Where is the Right to Torture Children codified? I can show your where the right to keep and bears arms is codified.

And it wasn't an extreme example. It wasn't even an example, because the right never existed. So your statement that "not all rights are beneficial" is inane, since tortuing children isnt' a right that anyone gave up.



Good for you. I support your right to whatever sexual fantasies get you off. Other people don't share those fantasies, and don't want to get assaulted. The young woman in the post that started this thread, which you might not have bothered to read, wasn't just assaulted. She was murdered.

But if you want to be assaulted, it's easy to do. Go get drunk and then wander around any bad neighborhood in the US, half clothed. You'll be assaulted presently. Of course you'll probably get murdered afterwards, but you'll be happy knowing you don't own a gun.

Oh dear lord, I can barely watch, the missing of the point is THAT horrific :(

1) Just because it's in the constitution doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

2) The point being, (and I can't get my head around quite how you missed this whilst it STARES YOU IN THE FACE AND KICKS YOU IN THE CROTCH) that in Scotland you would be assaulted but less likely to be shot. HELLO? DID THAT GET THROUGH YOUR 20 FOOT THICK SKULL?

Daily News, Los Angeles, CA, 9/8/98
According to police, a Lancaster, California, man became enraged when a friend of his wife told him she didn't know where his wife was. Police said the man reacted by stabbing the woman and two other people in the same neighborhood. He was finally stopped by another neighbor who fired once from a shotgun, hitting the man in the abdomen.

And if the man in question had picked up a pistol instead? Woohoo, gunfight!

Oh dear lord, I can barely watch, the missing of the point is THAT horrific :(

1) Just because it's in the constitution doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

2) The point being, (and I can't get my head around quite how you missed this whilst it STARES YOU IN THE FACE AND KICKS YOU IN THE CROTCH) that in Scotland you would be assaulted but less likely to be shot. HELLO? DID THAT GET THROUGH YOUR 20 FOOT THICK SKULL?

1. So the right to free speech is a bad idea? The right to a speedy trial is a bad idea? the right to be free from illegal searches is a bad idea?

Oh wait a minute. You think any right is a bad idea if you don't agree with it. You support all the other rights I take it?

No I got your point. I thought it was stupid, so I responded accordingly. But if you say something intelligent, I'll try and responding accordingly. With is 20 FOOT THICK SKULL it might be difficult.

If those statistics were anti-guns you'd be onto the massive flaws in a flash.

The figures are very, very different to official police figures, which I'll assume are more reliable than 'phone interviews' :)

Assumtions are nice things.

So, because black gang members are shooting each other and "falsely" inflating the statistics, it's okay and guns are good?

Techincially...yes

If the guns weren't in the hands of black gang members, I can think of various sharp and blunt objects they would use against each other.

Sure, it would decrease gun violence, but the violent crime rate would still stay the same.

Sorry, where was the racism? Or for that matter, the other stuff

It was in the the post(yours) that assumes that people who support the right to bear arms don't care about blacks, dismissing their deaths, and that they are "blind".

Fuck guns.

How many other stories of gun nuts shooting the gas man, or meter reader, or some other bullshit are out there?

And if the man in question had picked up a pistol instead? Woohoo, gunfight!

Nice how you missed the part about him stabbing three people before being shot.





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.

Fuck guns.

How many other stories of gun nuts shooting the gas man, or meter reader, or some other bullshit are out there?

Plenty of stories but few actual events. Nowhere near the amount that there are real situations of people defending themselves w/ firearms.

GUNS SUCK! look at the figures for gun related deaths in Scotland and compare them to America, oh no wait a minute you can't legally buy guns in Scotland maybe that is why the gun death rate is lower... DUH!!! Guns prevent crime, but in teh wrong hands can cause huge devastation, i say shoot any fucker that looks at ya weird!

GUNS SUCK! look at the figures for gun related deaths in Scotland and compare them to America, oh no wait a minute you can't legally buy guns in Scotland maybe that is why the gun death rate is lower... DUH!!! Guns prevent crime, but in teh wrong hands can cause huge devastation, i say shoot any fucker that looks at ya weird!

What was the murder rate w/ firearms before they were banned?

Where is the Right to Torture Children codified? I can show your where the right to keep and bears arms is codified.

And it wasn't an extreme example. It wasn't even an example, because the right never existed. So your statement that "not all rights are beneficial" is inane, since tortuing children isnt' a right that anyone gave up.


A right is only something that no one can stop you from doing. It would be a right if the state chose to give it to you, just as gun ownership is a right because the state chooses to give it to you. Just because one is in the U.S consititution and another is not does not make it any less of an example. It is a right that was given up in the sense that it has being declared illegal by the state, and rightly so.

Nice how you missed the part about him stabbing three people before being shot.

Uh, no I didn't. If the murderer had a gun not a knife it'd be 3 bullets down, ten or more to go, and if he gets first shot on the other guy it's another one dead.

What was the murder rate w/ firearms before they were banned?
As far as i know, you have never been able to puchase firearms legally here. :confused:
erm well u can purchase shotguns for farmers and teh like, but that is all legally, air riffles you can get but well you cant reeli go on a rampage with a piece of tat like that, but figures i jsut read say 4.7% of houses in Scotland own a gun! hmm there arent that many farmers. http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

A right is only something that no one can stop you from doing. It would be a right if the state chose to give it to you, just as gun ownership is a right because the state chooses to give it to you. Just because one is in the U.S consititution and another is not does not make it any less of an example. It is a right that was given up in the sense that it has being declared illegal by the state, and rightly so.

You can't be an American. If you are, your teachers should be fired. Please go read the Constitution. It says very clearly that the "rights" in the Bill of Rights are NOT given by the state, but endowed by "their Creator". The state DIDN'T give anyone the right to keep and bear arms, it belong to people before the formation of the Republic. It belongs to you at birth. The State didn't give it, and teh Constitution mentions it so the State will know it CAN'T take it away.

Please read the Constitution before you make any more comments on it. You have no clue what you're talking about.

Uh, no I didn't. If the murderer had a gun not a knife it'd be 3 bullets down, ten or more to go, and if he gets first shot on the other guy it's another one dead.


Do you have any sources to back this up? Why is it then that over 2 million people defend themselves w/ firearms every year?





The Mercury News, San Jose, CA, 4/13/91
After a co-worker had been stabbed the day earlier, Jerry Young of Union City, Calif., took his pistol to work. Four hours into his store-clerk's shift, Young was confronted by a woman with a pistol who demanded money. Young turned over cash, but as she was fleeing the store, Young yelled for her to stop. When she turned and pointed her gun at him, he shot her once and held her for police.

-sighs-
It's interesting, the NationStates forum is one of the most unfriendly forums that I've ever been in. In this particular thread, the most insults and general nastiness seem to be coming from the "anti-gun" crowd. (I know that they will flame me for saying this.)

I was pro-gun before reading this thread. My thinking was that people should be allowed to own guns, since it is a right enshrined in the constitution. After reading the thread, I am still pro-gun. I am impressed by the sheer numbers of facts, statistics, and news articles that the pro-gunners have brought to bear. They have also (for the most part) been calm and logical.

The anti-gunners, on the other hand, have not introduced ANY facts or statistics. They have instead (again, for the most part) relied on broad, unsubstantiated statements, personal attacks, and general obnoxiousness to make their point.

A right is only something that no one can stop you from doing. It would be a right if the state chose to give it to you, just as gun ownership is a right because the state chooses to give it to you. Just because one is in the U.S consititution and another is not does not make it any less of an example. It is a right that was given up in the sense that it has being declared illegal by the state, and rightly so.

So you would willingly give up the right to freedom of speech if the state declared it illegal?

-sighs-
It's interesting, the NationStates forum is one of the most unfriendly forums that I've ever been in. In this particular thread, the most insults and general nastiness seem to be coming from the "anti-gun" crowd. (I know that they will flame me for saying this.)

I was pro-gun before reading this thread. My thinking was that people should be allowed to own guns, since it is a right enshrined in the constitution. After reading the thread, I am still pro-gun. I am impressed by the sheer numbers of facts, statistics, and news articles that the pro-gunners have brought to bear. They have also (for the most part) been calm and logical.

The anti-gunners, on the other hand, have not introduced ANY facts or statistics. They have instead (again, for the most part) relied on broad, unsubstantiated statements, personal attacks, and general obnoxiousness to make their point.

There are a few gun control advocates who frequent these boards who can make very sound (if flawed :) )arguements.

Most, however, use the much debunked studies by Kellerman and flawed international comparisons to "prove" firearms are "bad".

Yeah, maybe a young woman can defend herself against a rape gang if they're only armed with baseball bats!


I have a dear friend who had a gun, right by the bed. Her rapist used it to rape her at gun point. Yeah, that gun did her a hell of a lot of good. What, are you going to say it was her fault for not being quick enough to get the gun first? Stop it with the damn rhetoric and generalizations. :mad: :upyours:

There are a few gun control advocates who frequent these boards who can make very sound (if flawed :) )arguements.

Most, however, use the much debunked studies by Kellerman and flawed international comparisons to "prove" firearms are "bad".


Oh, such arguments are flawed, eh? Of course, because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Prove they're "flawed." Prove it objectively.

I have a dear friend who had a gun, right by the bed. Her rapist used it to rape her at gun point. Yeah, that gun did her a hell of a lot of good. What, are you going to say it was her fault for not being quick enough to get the gun first? Stop it with the damn rhetoric and generalizations. :mad: :upyours:

So would her situation have been better if she didn't have a gun and the rapist threatened her with a knife instead? I don't see how that makes any sense. While a gun might not have been any use in this particular case, that does not invalidate the fact that many people do successfully defend themselves with their guns.

-sighs-
It's interesting, the NationStates forum is one of the most unfriendly forums that I've ever been in. In this particular thread, the most insults and general nastiness seem to be coming from the "anti-gun" crowd. (I know that they will flame me for saying this.)

I was pro-gun before reading this thread. My thinking was that people should be allowed to own guns, since it is a right enshrined in the constitution. After reading the thread, I am still pro-gun. I am impressed by the sheer numbers of facts, statistics, and news articles that the pro-gunners have brought to bear. They have also (for the most part) been calm and logical.

The anti-gunners, on the other hand, have not introduced ANY facts or statistics. They have instead (again, for the most part) relied on broad, unsubstantiated statements, personal attacks, and general obnoxiousness to make their point.

It's part of the total weapons ban= no violence whatsoever fallacy. Seems a lot of anti gunners like to ignore how most instances of violent crime anywhere in the world usually use either bare fists or weapons of an improvised nation. When you really get down to it, the only way to stop violent crime entirely by use of any kind of ban would be to get rid of the entire human race's limbs. Even then, you might have people who manage to pull themselves by their chins to bite people.

IMHO, if we ever want to stop violent crime, the entire human race has to learn to improve, rather then be protected from even having to deal with the fact that we're not a nice species. All those supposedly "higher principals" pacifists like to claim they have don't mean jack squat if they're the only ones who do.

The truth is, human nature makes the capability and will to do violence necessary for survival. Only by changing human nature for everyone, can violence be stopped.

So you would willingly give up the right to freedom of speech if the state declared it illegal?


Nice strawman.

[QUOTE=Texsonia][QUOTE=Gymoor II The Return]911 doesn't accidentally shoot your daughter when she's sneaking back into the house nor does 911 go off in a toddler's hand.

Did you fail to read my ENTIRE post? I guess you were too busy frothing.

A friend of mine from high school was accidentally killed by the family gun, so think before you make insults, please.


he should know better than to play with a gun.

with his death the gene pool became slightly less mukry.

Oh, such arguments are flawed, eh? Of course, because it doesn't agree with your viewpoint. Prove they're "flawed." Prove it objectively.

There have been numerous statistics, news stories, surveys, etc posted by pro-gunners that do objectively prove that the right to own a gun should be protected. There has not been a single example of this kind of research by the anti-gun crowd. It's you guys who need to "objectively prove" your argument.

Do you have any sources to back this up? Why is it then that over 2 million people defend themselves w/ firearms every year?

Ignoring my points entirely, way to go...

I have a dear friend who had a gun, right by the bed. Her rapist used it to rape her at gun point. Yeah, that gun did her a hell of a lot of good. What, are you going to say it was her fault for not being quick enough to get the gun first? Stop it with the damn rhetoric and generalizations. :mad: :upyours:

SO you're saying she "wouldn't" have been raped if she didn't have a gun?

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 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."

Plenty of stories but few actual events. Nowhere near the amount that there are real situations of people defending themselves w/ firearms.


Of course. Any story that doesn't support your point of view is, by definition, false.

Oh dear lord, I can barely watch, the missing of the point is THAT horrific :(

1) Just because it's in the constitution doesn't automatically make it a good idea.

2) The point being, (and I can't get my head around quite how you missed this whilst it STARES YOU IN THE FACE AND KICKS YOU IN THE CROTCH) that in Scotland you would be assaulted but less likely to be shot. HELLO? DID THAT GET THROUGH YOUR 20 FOOT THICK SKULL?

That's why we have the Ammendment process. Which by the way, IS in the Constitution. Unfortunately, as long as there are human beings, the right to bear arms will be necessary. That is something you cannot live with out, because people are stupid, petty, and violent. UNTIL we make drastic improvements people all over are fighting left right and center, it's necessary.

My advice to you my friend, is to cool your temper and try to think this thing over before posting anything else. Then you can tell us what you learned.

Ignoring my points entirely, way to go...

Pot meet kettle.

The criminal had "already" stabbed three people before being shot. You then assume that had he had a firearm,
1)he would have been able to hurt more people
2) would have been able to shoot the man w/ the shotgun first
3)the man w/ the shotgun WOULD have died.

That's lots of assumtions on a made up scenario.

On the other hand, the criminal WAS prevented from harming any more people by a LAC w/ a shotgun.

I have a dear friend who had a gun, right by the bed. Her rapist used it to rape her at gun point. Yeah, that gun did her a hell of a lot of good. What, are you going to say it was her fault for not being quick enough to get the gun first? Stop it with the damn rhetoric and generalizations. :mad: :upyours:

So a man came into her house to do her laundry and her dishes, but then he found the gun and it made him a rapists?

SO you're saying she "wouldn't" have been raped if she didn't have a gun?


Don't be an ass. Of course that's not what I'm saying and I'm sure you knew that. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. How dare you belittle what she went through?

Of course. Any story that doesn't support your point of view is, by definition, false.

AS I'VE BEEN SAYING, the anti-gunners have yet to post a single news story or statistic which that proves gun ownership is a bad idea. You can whine all you want. But until you get something to back it up, no one's going to take you seriously!

And making obnoxious one line posts like this isn't exactly helping your cause either, you know.

Of course. Any story that doesn't support your point of view is, by definition, false.

Odd, all of my "stories" have had sources attached to them.

So a man came into her house to do her laundry and her dishes, but then he found the gun and it made him a rapists?


That reponse was just asinine. What would make you say something like that? What exactly were you trying to say?

Don't be an ass. Of course that's not what I'm saying and I'm sure you knew that. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. How dare you belittle what she went through?

I think his point is that your story fails to support your position. Although he could have found a kinder way to say it, I'm sure he's not intentionally "belittling" it. If he is, then yes, he is an ass.

Odd, all of my "stories" have had sources attached to them.


So? How does that prove that an opposing viewpoint is false?

So? How does that prove that an opposing viewpoint is false?

It doesn't. What it does prove is that you haven't done any research to find convincing evidence to back up your point. Until you do, your position is unsubstantiated.

You can't be an American. If you are, your teachers should be fired. Please go read the Constitution. It says very clearly that the "rights" in the Bill of Rights are NOT given by the state, but endowed by "their Creator". The state DIDN'T give anyone the right to keep and bear arms, it belong to people before the formation of the Republic. It belongs to you at birth. The State didn't give it, and teh Constitution mentions it so the State will know it CAN'T take it away.

Please read the Constitution before you make any more comments on it. You have no clue what you're talking about.

No i'm not an American, and i'm not talking about the consitituation as if it were the only sourcre of rights out there. There are many different rights and different ways of interpreting them. Personally, I disagree with the notion of "natural rights" - what good is a right without a state to ensure it is delivered? Besides, even if there were such things as God-given rights, do you think "The ability to own a deadly weapon" would be one of them?

Don't be an ass. Of course that's not what I'm saying and I'm sure you knew that. Thank you for putting words in my mouth. How dare you belittle what she went through?

I'm not belittling it in any way. A rape is a horrible crime.

I have posted several accounts (with actual sources) of women defending themselves from sexual assault by using a firearm. Do you feel that women should not have the option of having a firearm to defend themselves?



The Union, San Diego, CA, 5/10/89

When a man began pounding on the door of a home in Rancho Penasquitos, Calif., saying he had been in a wreck and wanted to use the phone, the young woman in the home turned on a security system that phoned police. She armed herself, and when the man smashed his head through the door's window, she warned him off with a shot through the ceiling. The man continued into the home, and the woman opened fire, wounding him four times, then fled the house with her children. The wounded attacker had just been released from prison a week earlier.

I have a dear friend who had a gun, right by the bed. Her rapist used it to rape her at gun point. Yeah, that gun did her a hell of a lot of good. What, are you going to say it was her fault for not being quick enough to get the gun first? Stop it with the damn rhetoric and generalizations. :mad: :upyours:
Let's assume that this is a true story. Does the misfortune of your friend preclude the _right_ of other law-abiding citizens to defend themselves? Or should I say, does this one, isolated instance invalidate the numerous instances where citizens have successfully defended their lives, liberty, and property?

So? How does that prove that an opposing viewpoint is false?

It means his side of the argument can actually be verified, while yours can't. See, when people can't prove what their saying, they're usually ignoring the truth of whatever position their opposing.

So? How does that prove that an opposing viewpoint is false?

I've never said that. That was you.

The point is is that I'm the one providing actual data while others are just posting "rhetoric and generalizations" w/o any cooborating evidence.

AS I'VE BEEN SAYING, the anti-gunners have yet to post a single news story or statistic which that proves gun ownership is a bad idea. You can whine all you want. But until you get something to back it up, no one's going to take you seriously!

And making obnoxious one line posts like this isn't exactly helping your cause either, you know.


Hmmm... you know, you're right. I've been wrong my entire life! I think I'll go out and buy a membership in the NRA. I will not reveal the particulars of my friend's case. I should probablly apologize to her for saying this much. Tell you what. I'm going to leave this thread. Why don't you go re-read the Constitution and see if you can decipher the second half of the 2nd Amendment.

[QUOTE=Aaronthepissedoff]That's why we have the Ammendment process. Which by the way, IS in the Constitution. [QUOTE]

And they can't be used to reverse Absolute or Natural Rights. Because they are NOT given by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is a Natural Right.

The only reason the unConstitutional laws restricting gun ownership exist at all is through complicity of the people.

I really like the way you keep posting little news articles. Thanks for doing the research that I'm too lazy to want to do. :p

I'm not belittling it in any way. A rape is a horrible crime.

I have posted several accounts (with actual sources) of women defending themselves from sexual assault by using a firearm. Do you feel that women should not have the option of having a firearm to defend themselves?



The Union, San Diego, CA, 5/10/89

When a man began pounding on the door of a home in Rancho Penasquitos, Calif., saying he had been in a wreck and wanted to use the phone, the young woman in the home turned on a security system that phoned police. She armed herself, and when the man smashed his head through the door's window, she warned him off with a shot through the ceiling. The man continued into the home, and the woman opened fire, wounding him four times, then fled the house with her children. The wounded attacker had just been released from prison a week earlier.

I think his point is that your story fails to support your position. Although he could have found a kinder way to say it, I'm sure he's not intentionally "belittling" it. If he is, then yes, he is an ass.

I most likely would have been kinder had the "flip off" smiley not been added.

Hmmm... you know, you're right. I've been wrong my entire life! I think I'll go out and buy a membership in the NRA. I will not reveal the particulars of my friend's case. I should probablly apologize to her for saying this much. Tell you what. I'm going to leave this thread. Why don't you go re-read the Constitution and see if you can decipher the second half of the 2nd Amendment.

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


Pretty clear cut.

Hmmm... you know, you're right. I've been wrong my entire life! I think I'll go out and buy a membership in the NRA. I will not reveal the particulars of my friend's case. I should probablly apologize to her for saying this much. Tell you what. I'm going to leave this thread. Why don't you go re-read the Constitution and see if you can decipher the second half of the 2nd Amendment.


Goodbye then. Enjoy your NRA membership.

"...The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


Pretty clear cut.


Forgive me. I meant the first half.

going to leave this thread. Why don't you go re-read the Constitution and see if you can decipher the second half of the 2nd Amendment.

I have, and all the dliberation that the Founding Fathers put into it, which they were kind enought to write down. As well as the documents that the 2nd Amendment was taken from. It's called research. It's generally done by thinking mammals.

Forgive me. I meant the first half.

Let me see if I understand you here:

1. The people in the First Amendment means the people;
2. The people in the Fourth Amendment means the people;
3. The people in the Ninth Amendment means, the people;
4. ...but The people in the Second Amendment (ratified in 1791)
means the National Guard (created by an Act of Congress in 1903)?

After reviewing some of these posts, it is clear that violence doesn't stem from access to weapons. Some of these debates are downright bloodthirsty.
We should be grateful we can discuss these concepts in a controlled environment and in relative anonymity.
The problems we find in guns and gun ownership are the result of hundreds of flaws in our culture---in our education, in our parenting techniques (or lack thereof) and our general regard for human life. There are some cultures where every aspect of daily life is sacred, worthy of the utmost respect.
Name one thing that all Americans, as a culture, hold truly sacred. Love? Life? Patriotism?
We have respect for nothing. Is it any suprise that we have problems with violent crime?
In our country, there is no right and wrong. There are only choices.
We can chase our tails all we want over these problems, but they will not go away until we learn to value something as a culture.
Maybe getting rid of guns is an answer.
On the other hand, if all americans were responsible, respectable, trustworthy citizens, would we even need to worry?
If you want to fix the gun problem start at the source: human nature.

[QUOTE=Aaronthepissedoff]That's why we have the Ammendment process. Which by the way, IS in the Constitution. [QUOTE]

And they can't be used to reverse Absolute or Natural Rights. Because they are NOT given by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment is a Natural Right.

The only reason the unConstitutional laws restricting gun ownership exist at all is through complicity of the people.

You'd think that, but take a look at all of the laws people willing get passed to restrict freedom of speech or of religion without the Supreme Court even seeing them, let alone ruling them unconstitutional, the truth is, enough people especially anti gunners view ANY right as able to be changed. Which is why you have to remind them of the necessity.

Like I tried explaining earlier, as long as there are people who act like people, there will be violence. Until that stops, which it most likely won't, violence, and thus weapons will be necessary to the one truly universal right every human being should have but many prefer to deny: Survival.

*shoots up thread*

*throws grenade into thread*

KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!








You're right, that was better than 911.

Forgive me. I meant the first half.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

"Regulated", by late 18th century usage meant "equipped".

"militia" is defined by US Code as any male not in the armed forces between 17 & 45 and females in the Nat'l Guard.

It also defines the Military, Guard, Regular & Irregular Militia.



I , as have many scholars, have already "deciphered" it.

After reviewing some of these posts, it is clear that violence doesn't stem from access to weapons. Some of these debates are downright bloodthirsty.
We should be grateful we can discuss these concepts in a controlled environment and in relative anonymity.
The problems we find in guns and gun ownership are the result of hundreds of flaws in our culture---in our education, in our parenting techniques (or lack thereof) and our general regard for human life. There are some cultures where every aspect of daily life is sacred, worthy of the utmost respect.
Name one thing that all Americans, as a culture, hold truly sacred. Love? Life? Patriotism?
We have respect for nothing. Is it any suprise that we have problems with violent crime?
In our country, there is no right and wrong. There are only choices.
We can chase our tails all we want over these problems, but they will not go away until we learn to value something as a culture.
Maybe getting rid of guns is an answer.
On the other hand, if all americans were responsible, respectable, trustworthy citizens, would we even need to worry?
If you want to fix the gun problem start at the source: human nature.


(claps in appreciation)

Not bad.

After reviewing some of these posts, it is clear that violence doesn't stem from access to weapons. Some of these debates are downright bloodthirsty.
We should be grateful we can discuss these concepts in a controlled environment and in relative anonymity.
The problems we find in guns and gun ownership are the result of hundreds of flaws in our culture---in our education, in our parenting techniques (or lack thereof) and our general regard for human life. There are some cultures where every aspect of daily life is sacred, worthy of the utmost respect.
Name one thing that all Americans, as a culture, hold truly sacred. Love? Life? Patriotism?
We have respect for nothing. Is it any suprise that we have problems with violent crime?
In our country, there is no right and wrong. There are only choices.
We can chase our tails all we want over these problems, but they will not go away until we learn to value something as a culture.
Maybe getting rid of guns is an answer.
On the other hand, if all americans were responsible, respectable, trustworthy citizens, would we even need to worry?
If you want to fix the gun problem start at the source: human nature.

Exactly correct. The problem is that learning to better human nature will be a rather large task... *understatement of the year

I don't think it will ever happen. I think we'll be arguing and fighting until the Sun turns into a red giant and swallows the earth (hopefully we'll be on other planets by then, enabling us to keep fighting each other ;) ).

I own a .22 pistol, a .32 pump action rifle, a .306, a vintage 1940s .30 M4A1, and a 20 and 12 guage. I still disagree with owning guns. They cause PLENTY more deaths than they save lives. The 2nd amendment was made TO KEEP A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, not to let every lunitic go out and buy a .38 special. But if you can't beat em, join em :D

I think both sides of the debate are wrong. Once guns are out there, there's no point thinking about banning or regulating them as people who want them, especially criminals, will get them easily enough. However, the pro-gun side seem to think that everyone carrying a pistol is some kind of utopia and the end of all crime. If you are defending yourself with a gun, or if it is known that concealed guns are common, criminals just have an incentive to be far more violent so that their victim doesn't have the chance to use their gun.

interesting point.

they should do some type of study to see if there is an increase in violent attacks in concealed weapons states.

however it is a fact that in cities/states that have shall issue ccw permits,crime itself has dropped dramatically across the board(not the bloodbath in the streets the handwringing,we know better then you just because,lefties spouted)

and of coarse,in cities like chicago/dc/nyc where there is a total handgun ban,crime of all sorts has stayed the same or increased.

i guess every gun owner turns out to NOT be:
1.a redneck
2.a bloodthirsty killer
3.waiting to shoot someone at the drop of a hat
4.as i read on another thread"a redneck with penis inadequacies/envy"
5.triggerhappy nutjob

and turns out to be:
1.responsible
2.interested in protecting their families
3.maybe even as many have said,just enjoy shooting sports and the mechanical art of a gun(that would be me)
4.wanting to keep the tradition of self reliance our forefathers instilled in us
5.belief in the constitution and the rights it promises

i am talking about legal gun owners here,not gangbangers and crimminals.
the gb's and crimminals will assault/kill you laws or not,as washington dc's crime report bears out.
and the b.s. that happened in new orleans showed.

as far as the murdered girl goes,no one will ever know if a gun would have saved her.
but my girl in college is currently being taught by me the use of a gun in self defense ,and at least she will have an option to protect herself when the sometimes non existant(out writing revenue generating citations)police dont show up until it is time for an after action/crime report.
some may say the gun may be used against her....maybe,maybe not...but at least she wont be utterly defenseless.
and the odds are she will never need it to protect herself,but it will be there if needed,rather then not. :mp5:

The debate for and agaisnt gun-control laws in very complex, with no one incident the same to the next. In australia there was a massacre in port arthur, with many people being killed by a guy with a gun - just shot for no reason, cause this guy was insane. thanks to this wanker laws came in, im only 16 and i have to cough up over 100 bucks just to get my junior shooters, than i have to pay club fees, ammo and the rest of it. This cant be taken away but for god sakes how strict do you want them to be.
It seems to me like all the anti-gun people are hoping for a world where guns were never thought of. In reality guns are here, and they are in the arms of bad people. Even if people banned guns all together there are ways of getting them, just last year i was able to secure an illegally imported .45 pistol... thats not healthy for a teenager, so what could an adult with a large salary and good connections get, bombs? fully automatic machine guns? In reality they could get any number of things to do what they wanted to do, plus if they didnt care about their lives they wouldnt care about the consequences, they'd just do what they wanted to do and commit suicide... the point im trying to make is that guns are there and guns are real, wheather obtained legally or illegally people are going to get killed, sure banning them will reduce accidents, but that would also significantly boost illegal weapons running.
Whats next, a ban on sticks and stones? how about compulsory background checks for people wanting to buy petrol, wouldnt want a molotov cocktail thrown. Be it with guns or anything else, people will commit their crimes, as best put earlier on in the thread, "the only way to stop crime is to stop criminals"
Has anybody got statistics of how many people were murdered with illegal guns to how many people were murdered with legal guns?

Article [II.]
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It most definitely includes the right to bear arms and NOT just for the militias. If you don't get this by reading it look at the time of the Founding Fathers, they would put in a right like this so people could resist oppression if it happens like they themselves did.

Has anybody got statistics of how many people were murdered with illegal guns to how many people were murdered with legal guns?

It's really hard to say exactly and it depends on which area also inthat not all weapons are recovered from murder scenes.

In Wash. DC ,for ex, ALL murders w/ firearms are illegal.

Approx 75% of murderers however, have prior felony convictions of one sort or another leading one to assume they are restricted from ownership in most states.

-sighs-
It's interesting, the NationStates forum is one of the most unfriendly forums that I've ever been in. In this particular thread, the most insults and general nastiness seem to be coming from the "anti-gun" crowd. (I know that they will flame me for saying this.)

I was pro-gun before reading this thread. My thinking was that people should be allowed to own guns, since it is a right enshrined in the constitution. After reading the thread, I am still pro-gun. I am impressed by the sheer numbers of facts, statistics, and news articles that the pro-gunners have brought to bear. They have also (for the most part) been calm and logical.

The anti-gunners, on the other hand, have not introduced ANY facts or statistics. They have instead (again, for the most part) relied on broad, unsubstantiated statements, personal attacks, and general obnoxiousness to make their point.



how true indeed,it is always like that with people that like to think they know what is better for everyone....just because ,or there inflated self ego.
when confronted with facts or reasoned argument,generally resort to name calling,swipes at your intellect or my personall fave with the anti gun crowd....a snide comment on your masculinity or lack there of(discounting all the women that own/enjoy guns...maybe they just want penis'..lol)

why should sarah brady know what is better for me and mine then myself...because her husband was shot?
how does that make her an instant know it all?
i wonder if there home was being invaded/attacked and her husband defended his family(with a gun),if she would be singing the same tune?i seriously doubt it!
all though he probably survived because of men with guns coming to his aid,however the average joe/joanne does not have the luxury of a secret service detail.


Originally Posted by Stolen Dreams
Why is it that only the pro-gun crowds call the anti-gun people idiots - and not the same thing the other way around?

Testosterone overdose?


like i said...pretty predictable me thinks about the above post/insinuation :sniper: :mp5:

Yeah i could imagine those statistics would be hard to gather... thanks anyway
Has anybody here actually been threatened by a gun or been seriously in doubt of their life thanks to another person. Long ago when i associated with gang-related people (stupidly) , the people i got caught up with thought i stole some of their drugs. After being threatened that it was either drugs back, money for it or i get shot i can honestly say that without adequate forms of self protection i was scared into running, if it had kept on going i have no doubt i would have commited suicide
While my heart goes out to those who gave toddlers guns and played russian roulette when they were drunk/high dont b a bunch of retards, banning guns is not the answer, a happy medium is what we need

Now I just don't see any logic in gun ownership. If you were to examin it closely then you would see a small flaw: The "fact" that you are able to stop violence from happening to you is a myth.
Lets have a HYPOTHETICAL example. You see a known criminal robbing the bank with a knife. you just happen to be armed. The crminal is fleeing the scene of the crime so you whip out your wepon and blow his kneecap off. The police catch him but not before he learns who you are. While still in jail this criminal gets one of his buddies to come to your house/workplace/deserted back allyway and plug you full of holes. Now did that "protect you"? :confused:

It seems to me like all the anti-gun people are hoping for a world where guns were never thought of.

That would be nice then we would just have to work on the beatings/rapes/and other violent crime

Guns are great as long as you don't accidently shoot your kids with them.

Guns are great, "Happiness is a Warm Gun."

The number of truly "accidental" shootings in the US is very, very, very low.

When you see "deaths" by "firearm" of "children", you are not being shown "accidents". You are being shown the deliberate shootings of young black gang members between the ages of 19 and 21. Hardly children, and hardly accidents.

While one accident is a tragedy, annual firearms accidents that kill children vary between 100 and 200 a year in the US - sometimes lower. Your child is much more likely to be killed on a bicycle, or playing high school football, or riding in your car, or swimming in a pool with a lifeguard.
Nice analogy but the fact that there are firearms, increases the probability of your child dying period.

Now I just don't see any logic in gun ownership. If you were to examin it closely then you would see a small flaw: The "fact" that you are able to stop violence from happening to you is a myth.
Lets have a HYPOTHETICAL example. You see a known criminal robbing the bank with a knife. you just happen to be armed. The crminal is fleeing the scene of the crime so you whip out your wepon and blow his kneecap off. The police catch him but not before he learns who you are. While still in jail this criminal gets one of his buddies to come to your house/workplace/deserted back allyway and plug you full of holes. Now did that "protect you"? :confused:


That would be nice then we would just have to work on the beatings/rapes/and other violent crime
Instead of relying on hypothetical examples, you could turn to one of the many actual cases where a citizen was able to protect himself with a gun. But, no, let's ignore that and concentrate on fairy tales instead.

Things had turned ugly for Oklahoma Highway Patrol Officer Rick Wallace. He had found marijuana on a speeder, but was overpowered by the man before he could cuff him. Passerby Adolph Krejsek witnessed the altercation and came to the rescue, using his own firearm to help the trooper control the suspect. After helping subdue the assailant, Krejsek used the injured trooper`s radio to call for help.
(The Review Courier, Alva, OK, 1/8/95) (AR 6/95)

"It`s more than fighting fires. If somebody is in trouble, we`re going to show up," said Sipsey Valley volunteer firefighter James "Buddy" O`Hanlon. O`Hanlon was one of about 30 armed volunteer firefighters who responded within minutes to an emergency call from their chief, L.A. Marlowe, who had just been robbed and shot at outside of his Buhl, Ala., store. One suspect was spotted before he made it 100 yds. and was cornered in the woods by the army of firefighters, who apprehended him. Sheriff`s deputies quickly arrested another robber who had been identified by the firefighters. A third suspect was later apprehended.
(The News, Tuscaloosa, AL, 1/12/95) (AR 4/95)

In the finest tradition of armed citizens who take on crime in their communities, Texan Travis Neel helped save a wounded Harris County deputy sheriff`s life. Witnessing the shooting by one of a trio of Houston gang members after a traffic stop just west of Houston, Neel--who was on his way to his pistol range--pulled his gun and fired, driving the officer`s assailants away. An off-duty sheriff`s deputy also came on the scene and joined Neel in covering the deputy, whose life was saved by his body armor. The trio was captured after a manhunt.
(The Post, Houston, TX, 1/22/94) (AR 4/94)

While the situation ended without incident, armed citizen Michael Acree stood ready to lend a hand when a police officer stopped a carload of unruly teenagers outside his Salem, Connecticut, home. Noticing the youths scuffling with the officer, Acree retrieved his pistol and went out onto his lawn. When the youths saw Acree and his handgun, they calmed down and the situation ended peaceably. Acree earned the appreciation both of town officials and the officer.
(The Bulletin, Norwich, CT, 5/22/93) (AR 9/93)

That's just what the world really needs! Everyone carrying a gun would make the world a much safer place to be in!
Perhaps if you had a fairer, less hating and fearful culture, you wouldn't need the guns at all.
The idea of everyone having a gun at their disposal is just truly terrifying!

Nice analogy but the fact that there are firearms, increases the probability of your child dying period.


Nice analogy but the fact that there are cars, increases the probability of your child dying period.

Nice analogy but the fact that there are pools, increases the probability of your child dying period.

Nice analogy but the fact that there are buckets, increases the probability of your child dying period.

Nice analogy but the fact that there are chemicals, increases the probability of your child dying period.

Nice analogy but the fact that there are drugs, increases the probability of your child dying period.

etc.

Now I just don't see any logic in gun ownership. If you were to examin it closely then you would see a small flaw: The "fact" that you are able to stop violence from happening to you is a myth.
Lets have a HYPOTHETICAL example.

That would be nice then we would just have to work on the beatings/rapes/and other violent crime

Do you have a source to dismiss the fact or just your "hypothetical" example?

2.5 million "beatings/rapes/and other violent crimes" are stopped each year by LAC's w/ firearms. That is a fact, not a "hypothetical".

Now I just don't see any logic in gun ownership. If you were to examin it closely then you would see a small flaw: The "fact" that you are able to stop violence from happening to you is a myth.
Lets have a HYPOTHETICAL example. You see a known criminal robbing the bank with a knife. you just happen to be armed. The crminal is fleeing the scene of the crime so you whip out your wepon and blow his kneecap off. The police catch him but not before he learns who you are. While still in jail this criminal gets one of his buddies to come to your house/workplace/deserted back allyway and plug you full of holes. Now did that "protect you"? :confused:


That would be nice then we would just have to work on the beatings/rapes/and other violent crime

Someone watches too much television.

The idea of everyone having a gun at their disposal is just truly terrifying!

You're right. I bet all those Rawandan men, women, and children that were murdered were damn glad they didn't have a gun to protect themselves. And the 70,000 in Darfur. Bet they were glad they didn't have a means to protect themselves. And let's not forget the Jews in Europe. Yup, if they'd had a meas to protect themsleves, well they wouldn't have had a 6,000,000 person Holocaust. And the 50,000,000 people murdered by Stalin.

And to think, it was people like Hitler and Stalin who disarmed them. Of course let's not forget the help of anti-gunners like yourself. Getting all those scary guns out of the hands of the innocent that made it possible.

Yup, I'm scared to death of people being able to protect themselves.

http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/guncontrol.jpg

That's just what the world really needs! Everyone carrying a gun would make the world a much safer place to be in!
Perhaps if you had a fairer, less hating and fearful culture, you wouldn't need the guns at all.
The idea of everyone having a gun at their disposal is just truly terrifying!

The problem is, you can't put it back in the bag.

It's the same basic principle that exists between governments. If I have nuclear weapons, you won't dare use nuclear weapons against me, for fear I will use them back. The same principle applies to firearms.

Following this logic, no nations with any significant nuclear weapons will give them up, for fear of other countries still having them. Now that the trick is out of the bag, the best thing you can do to defend yourself is to have nukes. It would be wonderful and peachy if we could give up all our nuclear weapons, but that simply isn't realistic or reasonable.

The world would be a better place if we all had nukes, except suicidal people, but you've seen the movies, it costs millions

You're right. I bet all those Rawandan men, women, and children that were murdered were damn glad they didn't have a gun to protect themselves. And the 70,000 in Darfur. Bet they were glad they didn't have a means to protect themselves. And let's not forget the Jews in Europe. Yup, if they'd had a meas to protect themsleves, well they wouldn't have had a 6,000,000 person Holocaust. And the 50,000,000 people murdered by Stalin.

And to think, it was people like Hitler and Stalin who disarmed them. Of course let's not forget the help of anti-gunners like yourself. Getting all those scary guns out of the hands of the innocent that made it possible.

Yup, I'm scared to death of people being able to protect themselves.

http://www.geocities.com/lord_visionary/guncontrol.jpg

I am definitely pro-gun ownership and agree with the spirit of your argument that being armed is a good thing, but I am against lies and deception. The ends do not justify the means and spouting lies to further a good cause just makes us look worse, so quit it.

The fact is that gun control in Nazi germany was enacted in 1928 under the Weimar regime and was aimed at keeping the Nazis and other militant groups under control. It worked. The Nazis were unable to stage an armed revolution and had to wait until they came to power through democratic means.

Had the Jews been armed, would they have been able to stop the Nazis? Of course not! To think otherwise is ridiculous. This wasnt Nazi police alone who went after the Jews, it was the military. It took the combined might of three superpowers and dozens of other minor powers to stop the German military juggernaut. Do you really think a bunch of disorganized Jewish people with no military training spread out throughout poland and germany couldve stopped them? If you think so, you are obviously out of your mind. Not only would armed resistance have been futile but it wouldve further emboldened the Nazis and given their pogrom legitimacy. Remember, the Nazis were able to paint a picture of Jews as an evil and dangerous group bent on treachery, an armed Jewish resistance in Germany would not have weakened Nazis in any way, it would have emboldened them, given their cause some legitimacy and rallied even further support from the German masses who already supported Hitler.

Had the German population been armed, would they have stopped Hitler? Of course not. Hitler had overwhelming popular support. No one wouldve stopped him because no one wanted to. The Nazi party enjoyed overwhelming support and putting guns in the hands of German citizens wouldve made no difference when it comes to Hitler being in power. He got there democratically with overwhelming popular support and continued to enjoy such support throughout most of his career.

Of course, we are assuming that people would have armed themselves had there been no gun control laws to begin with, but before 1928 when the gun control laws were enacted gun ownership was not very widespread. Therefore, even without gun control, people would not have been heavily armed.

I fully support gun ownership, but lets not resort to lies and deception to promote our cause.

I am definitely pro-gun ownership and agree with the spirit of your argument that being armed is a good thing, but I am against lies and deception. The ends do not justify the means and spouting lies to further a good cause just makes us look worse, so quit it.
<snip>
I fully support gun ownership, but lets not resort to lies and deception to promote our cause.As someone who is anti-gun ownership, I applaud your post. :)

As someone who is anti-gun ownership, I applaud your post. :)

Thanks, but you're still wrong and Im not giving you my guns :p

Thanks, but you're still wrong and Im not giving you my guns :pIf all people that owned guns were more reasonable, it wouldn't be that much of a problem for them to have any :D

Yeah, maybe a young woman can defend herself against a rape gang if they're only armed with baseball bats!

Maybe a young woman with a gun will die for having a gun and using against their offenders. Maybe withoput she would be raped but alive.

Anyway if you don't have weapons at home, you won't have an accident with your kid or another Columbine.

I read through these 11 pages and wonder: why is it that people from both sides tend to go to such extremes?

I am generally pro-gun ownership. I want to be able to defend myself and others if I am attacked. The police indeed will not always make it on time.

Taking the guns away does not stop crime, on the contrary. Primitive, and not so primitive guns are ridiculously easy to make, and just as lethal as the factory made ones. My own father was once wounded by a drunk guy with a self-crafted zip gun.

However, I find that too many people want guns for all the wrong reasons. Too many seem to see guns as these cool toys. During my army service, I've stumbled upon a moron who used to point his rifle at people and pull the trigger. "What's the big deal"? he asked. "It's not loaded". Luckily, I did my service in the Central military court, so I jailed the idiot. As my dad used to say, even unloaded guns shoot once a year. And if he cannot be trusted with a weapon while in the military, under control of his superiors- how can he be trusted with a gun in his civilian life?

Another story: a girl once told me that her brother bought an airsoft gun and was planning on buying a real one. She had nothing against guns, but the idea of her brother having one terrified her- because her brother used his airsoft gun to target practice inside his room, shooting at the door. Every time she knocked on his door, she feared she'd get shot.

Switzerland is often mentioned as an example of society where guns are plentiful but crime is low. However, consider that all Swiss males go through an army service and receive exceptional training as riflemen. And the Swiss civil liberties situation would have been regarded by Americans as a catastrophe and a police state.

I live in Israel. Plenty of guns in the hands of the citizenry here, and crime is moderate, perhaps even low compared to US. However, just like in Switzerland, most Israeli males and about half the females do army service and receive thorough training on how to handle firearms. I remember they drilled, and drilled, and drilled us for months until it became something of an instinct to ALWAYS make sure our rifles are unloaded every time when entering a building, or a vehicle, or on every other conceivable occasion. And there STILL were accidental discharges here and there. Civilian gun ownership here is strictly conditional on past army service or profession, and the number of guns to own is restricted. You can't have a whole arsenal.

Perhaps ownership of guns should be conditional on thorough training in handling firearms, whether military or civilian, and frequent re-examination of those with the permit?

You can't be an American. [...] Please read the Constitution before you make any more comments on it. You have no clue what you're talking about.
America or not, it is you who is wrong and you are obnoxious to boot. One essential principle of laws is that everything which isnt expressively forbidden is allowed. This holds true for nearly every country throughout history. You arent given rights with laws, any law curbs the rights you would have in an anarchy, as would be the natural state of humans. Before the first nationstate was formed you had the right of free speech or the right to bear a spear and a stone axe.
Thus without laws protection the life and wellbeing of others, or the express forbiddance of torture and recognisation of children as beings having rights, you would have the right to torture children.
There are positive laws, aka rights, and negative laws, prohibitions. Everything not governed by those is automatically a right, which is why, e.g., early computer crimies werent such, even if it was harmfull. No law yet existed for several instances now considered criminal.

On the main issue, i see it as a cultural thing. If i was a resident in a nation that has widespread use of firearms, both legal and illegal, i would arm myself. But i am not, l live in a country were guns are heavily controlled. The only persons i ever saw carrying a gun in public are either policemen, soldiers or customs officers. The possibility of me being the victim of a violent crime is 25% of that in the US, the likelihood of me dying in the course of such a crime is about 8%, which is why i very much trust the police to protect me. I dont say there has to be a correlation and that i am more safe because we have such tight gun laws. But i know pretty certainly that 99.9% of all muggers asking for my money will not have the possibility to shoot me in the back if i run from them.

Maybe a young woman with a gun will die for having a gun and using against their offenders. Maybe withoput she would be raped but alive.

Anyway if you don't have weapons at home, you won't have an accident with your kid or another Columbine.
Maybe we should ask Christine Myers, the girl in my first post. We can't though. She was raped and killed. Did a gun provoke her killer into more violent action? Is she better off because she didn't have a gun to protect herself? Probably not in either case.

If all people that owned guns were more reasonable, it wouldn't be that much of a problem for them to have any :D
Hasn't anyone heard the phrase "An armed society is a polite society"? I suspect it's more of an axiom.

i'd completely forgotten that 911 is the emergency phone. i assumed this thread was about 9/11. wow.

Hasn't anyone heard the phrase "An armed society is a polite society"? I suspect it's more of an axiom.

an armed society is a scared society

Hasn't anyone heard the phrase "An armed society is a polite society"? I suspect it's more of an axiom.

Sure, that's how it was in the old "wild" west afterall. :rolleyes:



As for the actual topic title. 911 is MUCH better than guns by far. 911 can send an ambulance to your house if you are having a heart attack or some other medical emergency. Try saving yourself from a heart attack with a gun. ;)

As someone who is anti-gun ownership, I applaud your post. :)

*silently applauding, too*

I really would like to see the (reliable) sources that gun ownership reduces crime, in my professional career I have worked as a forensic pathologist in germany, which does not allow pivate gun ownership -as a general rule-, and there was less violent crime, less rape, less murder

*silently applauding, too*

I really would like to see the (reliable) sources that gun ownership reduces crime, in my professional career I have worked as a forensic pathologist in germany, which does not allow pivate gun ownership -as a general rule-, and there was less violent crime, less rape, less murder

It is irrelevant whether gun ownership reduces crime or not. That is not the only use for guns. Guns are also used in a variety of olympic level sports. They are also useful for hunting, and for protecting yourself from wild animals. They promote an outdoorsman family lifestyle with strong family values and provide a father/son bonding activity that so many non-outdoorsmen lack. Guns also teach responsability, and hunting teaches valuable lessons not only about survival but about mortality and hard work. Eating something they themselves hunted also provides kids with a sense of pride and a self esteem boost. Guns are a very useful tool with benefits for the whole family when used responsibly.

Yes, guns can help keep you safe, but that is not the only argument for gun ownership and if you throw that argument out, the pros of allowing gun ownership continue to outweigh the consequences by far.

Actually we are not all olympic shooters, are we? And wild animals and the propagated "rural lifestyle" and protection against wild animals does not apply to city dwellers, or am I wrong here...but most people nowadays live (have to live) in urban areas.

And does a truly deep father/son bonding include accidentally shooting your kid? Does this also apply to mothers and daughters or is this a males-only argument?

Maybe a young woman with a gun will die for having a gun and using against their offenders. Maybe withoput she would be raped but alive.

Anyway if you don't have weapons at home, you won't have an accident with your kid or another Columbine.

<Sarcasm>Oh, so not having a weapon in your home keeps accidents away? Tell that to the insurance agencies!</Sarcasm>
Saying that not having weapons at home will prevent another Columbine is rather like saying that not having a car will ensure you don't get killed in a traffic accident.
Making an objective observation here: in a society where guns are already abundant, it is foolhardy to try to deny others the weapons they legally own. It makes you a target. Also, while it's true that the US has one of the, if not the highest death counts where firearms are involved, well... um, lessee... US population is how high, again?
Really, saying that firearms culture is bad in a country with, say, a billion citizens and two thousand annual firearms deaths, while it's evidently much better in a country with 28 similar deaths and 14 million citizens is a case of not reading statistics... (these numbers pulled out of where the sun don't shine, and have no direct link to reality, they're just a theoretical example.)

And when it comes to deliberate murder... Don't blame the guns! If someone means to kill someone else, a gun is just *one* of the possible tools for the job. If there are no guns available, a killer will grab a knife. If no knife, then a club. If no actual club, then a piece of string...
Don't blame an inanimate object for the actions of its owner.

I'm babbling and ranting... Meh.

Sorry, I forgot...I don´t hunt my own food, I like to buy it...also there are a lot of medical problems with eating self-hunted animals, or do you apply to the killing-for-fun sort of hunting...then go hunting armed with a stone knife, creates a much deeper hunter-prey bonding :rolleyes:

Actually we are not all olympic shooters, are we?


No, we are not all olympic shooters. But those of us who live in the US all have the right to attempt to become olympic shooters. Even if we dont want to be olympic shooters, we may enjoy sport shooting, whether that be competitive or simply clay shooting for fun.

And wild animals and the propagated "rural lifestyle" and protection against wild animals does not apply to city dwellers, or am I wrong here...but most people nowadays live (have to live) in urban areas.

Not everyone lives a rural lifestyle, but even those who live in big cities have the right to go to the country to camp, hunt, fish, boat, and engage in a variety of outdoors activities. So, this still applies to city dwellers.

And does a truly deep father/son bonding include accidentally shooting your kid?

The situation you mention about accidentally shooting your kid is extremely rare. Your kid is far more likely to get killed in a traffic accident on the way to the hunting trip. Actually, he is far more likely to die in some non-gun related accident while on the trip.

Does this also apply to mothers and daughters or is this a males-only argument?

Hunting is traditionally a male sport, although that is only a guideline and not a rule. So what?

Your argument is baseless. Arguing that because something doesnt apply to everyone it should not be legally protected is without any logic.

...still more kids get accidentally shot because of the abundance of guns. And if you are training to become an olympic shooter, congratulations...but why not leave your gun at your training facility? Same applies to holiday shooters. Your argumentation is hollow...and without scientific basic sources mere assumption. Cite, qoute, look up and come back

I'd love to see your source for this. I like to be informed. Just by a casual perusing of google, it seems that there is a mountain of information that gun deaths in america are fairly low...and yet still dramatically higher than the rest of the industrialized world.

Again, I'm not for banning guns. I would just like to see more intelligent effort made to keep guns out of the hands of untrained and foolish people.

what's your defenation of untrained and foolish people most people in life and death suitations have never experience it before and are likly not think but act, and lets not forget that the news media in this country and the most of the sights that you will find will not provide any information about a another countries firearm accidents or deaths.

[QUOTE=LazyHippies]It is irrelevant whether gun ownership reduces crime or not. That is not the only use for guns. Guns are also used in a variety of olympic level sports. They are also useful for hunting, and for protecting yourself from wild animals. They promote an outdoorsman family lifestyle with strong family values and provide a father/son bonding activity that so many non-outdoorsmen lack. Guns also teach responsability, and hunting teaches valuable lessons not only about survival but about mortality and hard work. Eating something they themselves hunted also provides kids with a sense of pride and a self esteem boost. Guns are a very useful tool with benefits for the whole family when used responsibly.QUOTE]

Ha ha! You sound like one of those 1950's cheesy commercials. "Buy a gun, they benefit the whole family!"

*silently applauding, too*

I really would like to see the (reliable) sources that gun ownership reduces crime, in my professional career I have worked as a forensic pathologist in germany, which does not allow pivate gun ownership -as a general rule-, and there was less violent crime, less rape, less murder

size matters the US is far larger then germany in phyiscal size not only this but if the people in the US did not have legal private ownership then all the guns would be held by the criminals who actually use them with a malice intent.

*again silently aplauding*

Too bad, haven´t thought of those old commercials

...still more kids get accidentally shot because of the abundance of guns.

more than what? Where's the statistics and how do they compare to the dangers posed by things you do not support banning such as household cleaners, swimming pools, toys, and peanut butter?


And if you are training to become an olympic shooter, congratulations...but why not leave your gun at your training facility?


Maybe I train in several different places. Maybe I like to use my lunchbreak to hit the nearby shooting range but when I am at home I use the one near my house. Maybe I own a ranch and have my own targets. Maybe I also like to keep my gun for self defense and for hunting and other uses.


Same applies to holiday shooters. Your argumentation is hollow...and without scientific basic sources mere assumption. Cite, qoute, look up and come back

Ill let the other readers judge that, but I have a feeling there are a lot more laughing at your reasoning than there are people thinking I need evidence to support keeping a right. Actually, it is the person wanting to take away a person's rights who needs to come up with overwhelming evidence that it is the right thing to do.

[QUOTE=LazyHippies]It is irrelevant whether gun ownership reduces crime or not. That is not the only use for guns. Guns are also used in a variety of olympic level sports. They are also useful for hunting, and for protecting yourself from wild animals. They promote an outdoorsman family lifestyle with strong family values and provide a father/son bonding activity that so many non-outdoorsmen lack. Guns also teach responsability, and hunting teaches valuable lessons not only about survival but about mortality and hard work. Eating something they themselves hunted also provides kids with a sense of pride and a self esteem boost. Guns are a very useful tool with benefits for the whole family when used responsibly.QUOTE]

Ha ha! You sound like one of those 1950's cheesy commercials. "Buy a gun, they benefit the whole family!"

hey my father and I have had some of the best times use firearms they are good for the family when used correctly and by people who care about what happins to others.

size matters the US is far larger then germany in phyiscal size not only this but if the people in the US did not have legal private ownership then all the guns would be held by the criminals who actually use them with a malice intent.

Welcome to the world of statistics...and ask your girlfriend if size truly matters

[QUOTE=
And when it comes to deliberate murder... Don't blame the guns! If someone means to kill someone else, a gun is just *one* of the possible tools for the job. If there are no guns available, a killer will grab a knife. If no knife, then a club. If no actual club, then a piece of string...
Don't blame an inanimate object for the actions of its owner.

I'm babbling and ranting... Meh.[/QUOTE]

You most certainly are.

Go into a school building with a knife or a cricket bat and see how many people you can kill before you get overpowered.

Then try it with a Kalashnikov. Or better still, according to your argument, why not just let folk have TNT, Semtex or whatever they want? After all, you're no less dead if you are stabbed. There won't be so many killed, but hey, it's the PRINCIPLE, right?

Welcome to the world of statistics...and ask your girlfriend if size truly matters

hey you might ask yourself about hitler and keep you nazi ideas of the net about people personal property.

what do you know of statistics you have to understand them before you understand a situation

[QUOTE=Greater Virinius]
Really, saying that firearms culture is bad in a country with, say, a billion citizens and two thousand annual firearms deaths, while it's evidently much better in a country with 28 similar deaths and 14 million citizens is a case of not reading statistics... (these numbers pulled out of where the sun don't shine, and have no direct link to reality, they're just a theoretical example.)
QUOTE]

Err... if you admit your stats are all wrong then why on earth are you trying to make a point with them? Seems self-defeating.

For your information, the US has around 290 million citizens and Germany has around 80 million. Germany, if I remember correctly, has around 160 gun-related deaths per year (1 in every 500 000), while America has over 11,000 (1 in every 26,000). So legalising hand guns clearly does have an effect on the number of gun-related deaths.

hey you might ask yourself about hitler and keep you nazi ideas of the net about people personal property.

what do you know of statistics you have to understand them before you understand a situation

hit the mark, right sissy? Oh yes, if in argumentative trouble with a german quote Hitler...history wasn´t your best subject at school, right?

[QUOTE=Greater Virinius]
Really, saying that firearms culture is bad in a country with, say, a billion citizens and two thousand annual firearms deaths, while it's evidently much better in a country with 28 similar deaths and 14 million citizens is a case of not reading statistics... (these numbers pulled out of where the sun don't shine, and have no direct link to reality, they're just a theoretical example.)
QUOTE]

Err... if you admit your stats are all wrong then why on earth are you trying to make a point with them? Seems self-defeating.

For your information, the US has around 290 million citizens and Germany has around 80 million. Germany, if I remember correctly, has around 160 gun-related deaths per year (1 in every 500 000), while America has over 11,000 (1 in every 26,000). So legalising hand guns clearly does have an effect on the number of gun-related deaths.
*getting his hands wounded from applauding*

You most certainly are.

Go into a school building with a knife or a cricket bat and see how many people you can kill before you get overpowered.

Then try it with a Kalashnikov. Or better still, according to your argument, why not just let folk have TNT, Semtex or whatever they want? After all, you're no less dead if you are stabbed. There won't be so many killed, but hey, it's the PRINCIPLE, right?

*sigh* Dude,your argument is pointless and idiotic.According to pretty much any government,the principle is far more important than the people,so what you´re saying doesn´t really apply,does it?

That being said: This whole argument is pointless.You´re adressing the symptoms,not the actual issue(human nature).Banning guns is pointless(especially in an environment filled to the brink with firearms),educating people to be responsible human beings is not.If the gun is your tool of choice for that,why the fuck not?

I agree on the statement that it would be idiotic to ban guns in the US at this point, because the guns are so widespread. However, I do wonder why the murder rates in america are so much higher than in Europe. Are americans more violent than Europeans? What is the problem in USA? Also, I don't belive that giving everyone guns solves any problems.

size matters the US is far larger then germany in phyiscal size not only this but if the people in the US did not have legal private ownership then all the guns would be held by the criminals who actually use them with a malice intent.

You're right, some criminals would still have guns. But not nearly as many. In the UK we banned handguns after the Dunblane school shooting, and let me tell you there are now very, very few gun related deaths (around 65 per year in the UK compared to around 11,000 per year in the US {1 in every 923,000 in the UK compared to 1 in every 26,000 in the US}).

The US should have had the sense to ban handguns after horrible events like a school shooting or other mass murder using guns, but of course you've got that misplaced pride in the constitution which stops you. And you can't go against the constitution, can you?

Unless it's to chip away at civil liberties like same-sex marriage, of course.

The police are not responsible for your protection. Lets say you call the police because your home is being broken into. An officer is dispatched. He is 10 minutes away. 5 minutes later your daughter is murdered, 6 minutes later your son is murdered, 7 minutes later you are murdered. 8 minutes later the murderer is out the back door. 10 minutes later a police officer shows up (this is barring he pulled someone over that was going 56 in a 55 and decided to violate their civil rights and forgot to show up). The Officer proceeds with caution and finds you and your family murdered, he calls for back up. The murderer is gone and probably won't be caught, however if he is will you be brought back to life? Also are the police responsible for your death? No they are not, they won't be held responsible, if they were you will still be dead. Wish you had owned a gun or are you happy to be dead and have a dead family? Yeah I know it won't happen to you, I hope you're right.
Also the #1 way people commit suicide in the United States is gun shot.
The #1 way people commit suicide in Australia is hanging.
Banning guns makes as much since as banning rope. Oh but wait people kill other people with guns, same can be said about rope.
One more thing I've never seen a police beating on TV where the person that got beaten half to death by the police informed the officer he was legally packing a weapon and showed the officer proof he was liscened to pack that weapon. Sadly not all states even allow their citizens to legally conceal a deadly weapon.

I really would like to see the (reliable) sources that gun ownership reduces crime, in my professional career I have worked as a forensic pathologist in germany, which does not allow pivate gun ownership -as a general rule-, and there was less violent crime, less rape, less murderActually, what I think one of the main problems with guns is that they make people feel safe. Not just the person whose house is broken into, but also the guy breaking in. This is why I assume most break-ins in Germany occur when the occupants aren't in.

74 percent of all Part I violent felonies in the US (rape, robbery, murder, aggravated assault) are committed with NO WEAPON WHATSOEVER.

See the Department of Justice crime statistics page. I've posted this OVER and OVER and OVER again.

By "weapon", they mean anything - knife, club, gun, etc.

Of the crimes committed with a weapon, there are still many committed without firearms.

89 percent of rapes are committed with NO WEAPON.

The illusion that some of you have about crime "always" being committed with a gun, and the illusion you have that "crime would stop if guns were not around" is fallacious in the extreme.

The police are not responsible for your protection. Lets say you call the police because your home is being broken into.<snip>Yeah I know it won't happen to you, I hope you're right.Most break-ins in Germany occur when the occupants are out of the house. It's highly unlikely that that will happen to me.
Also the #1 way people commit suicide in the United States is gun shot.
The #1 way people commit suicide in Australia is hanging.
Banning guns makes as much since as banning rope. Oh but wait people kill other people with guns, same can be said about rope.A gun is a tool as much as rope is, with the exception that its purpose is to kill or injure things. A rope is made to tie things together and has many more uses than to hang yourself with. If you can show me a good number of other uses for a gun besides shooting or injuring or threatening to do either of those, you can use the rope arguement.
One more thing I've never seen a police beating on TV where the person that got beaten half to death by the police informed the officer he was legally packing a weapon and showed the officer proof he was liscened to pack that weapon. Sadly not all states even allow their citizens to legally conceal a deadly weapon.It's hard to prove you're legally packing a weapon when you're being beaten half to death ;)

The illusion that some of you have about crime "always" being committed with a gun, and the illusion you have that "crime would stop if guns were not around" is fallacious in the extreme.

Is genocide a crime? That is known to happen when guns aren't around. I also like when the news shows a picture of a gun to highlight a stabbing incident.

You're right, some criminals would still have guns. But not nearly as many. In the UK we banned handguns after the Dunblane school shooting, and let me tell you there are now very, very few gun related deaths (around 65 per year in the UK compared to around 11,000 per year in the US {1 in every 923,000 in the UK compared to 1 in every 26,000 in the US}).

The US should have had the sense to ban handguns after horrible events like a school shooting or other mass murder using guns, but of course you've got that misplaced pride in the constitution which stops you. And you can't go against the constitution, can you?

Unless it's to chip away at civil liberties like same-sex marriage, of course.

And the question I've asked the gun banners over and over. What were the crime rates BEFORE the ban was enacted?

So, in this entire thread, we still have been presented no evidence that the ownership of firearms increases crime, lots of emotionally based rhetoric, a number of personal attacks, and some country bashing.

Did I miss anything?

Is genocide a crime? That is known to happen when guns aren't around. I also like when the news shows a picture of a gun to highlight a stabbing incident.

Guns are illegal here in norway, so only the army and the police have them (legally), so does this mean that a genocide is planned? Also saying 'is known to happen when...' is misguiding, as 'Murder is known to happen when someone walks their dog', or 'wars are known to break out when it rains'. Genocides are known to happen when it rains too, so we should ban rain. Do you see the meaninglessness of saying that 'something is known to happen when...'?

Most break-ins in Germany occur when the occupants are out of the house. It's highly unlikely that that will happen to me.
A gun is a tool as much as rope is, with the exception that its purpose is to kill or injure things. A rope is made to tie things together and has many more uses than to hang yourself with. If you can show me a good number of other uses for a gun besides shooting or injuring or threatening to do either of those, you can use the rope arguement.
It's hard to prove you're legally packing a weapon when you're being beaten half to death ;)

Ah, the "gun has no use but to kill people" arguement.

I could present half a dozen uses, and the next step would be to dismiss them as "pointless" or "you don't NEED to"... statements.

Target shooting
hunting
relaxation
varmint control
skeet/trap shooting
plinking

There's a direct connection between the decline of piracy and the increase in global temperatures.

There's a direct connection between the decline in the childhood use of Spirograph and the increase in drug-related violence.

I agree on the statement that it would be idiotic to ban guns in the US at this point, because the guns are so widespread. However, I do wonder why the murder rates in america are so much higher than in Europe. Are americans more violent than Europeans? What is the problem in USA? Also, I don't belive that giving everyone guns solves any problems.

Criminals tend to be more violent. There is also the problems of illegal immigration, drugs, poverty, a violence encouraging criminal culture, etc.

Noone here endorses "giving everyone guns". The point of the matter is that many want to disarm the people who actually follow the laws leaving them at the mercy of criminals.

Sorry, I forgot...I don´t hunt my own food, I like to buy it...also there are a lot of medical problems with eating self-hunted animals, or do you apply to the killing-for-fun sort of hunting...then go hunting armed with a stone knife, creates a much deeper hunter-prey bonding :rolleyes:

So do you have some sort of evidence that fresh meat is more dangerous than week old, heavily processed plastic packages or are you just wanting to make the "all hunters are blood-thirsty" insult?

Ah, the "gun has no use but to kill people" arguement.

I could present half a dozen uses, and the next step would be to dismiss them as "pointless" or "you don't NEED to"... statements.

1 Target shooting
hunting
2 relaxation
3 varmint control
skeet/trap shooting
plinking

1) Target shooting is training to shoot at people. How the hell is that not related to shooting people?

2) Relaxion!? Are you some short of maniac?

3) So you shoot rats? Doesn't that just leave holes everywhere? There are other ways to controll vermin.

Also, you don't need a handgun for hunting, nor many other weapons people possess.

a few notes.

# Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.
# Washington DC's low murder rate of 80.6 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Arlington, VA's high murder rate of 1.6 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.
# Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."
# The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.
# We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.
# The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.
# An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.
# A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.
# When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).
# The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.
# One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady [or Sheena Duncan, Adele Kirsten, Peter Storey, etc.] for firearms expertise.
# The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1791, refers to the National Guard, which was created by an act of Congress in 1903.
# The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a state militia.
# These phrases," right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.
# We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.
# Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why the army has millions of them.
# Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.
# The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings,compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.
# The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.
# Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.
# A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.
# Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."
# Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.
# Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.
# A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.
# A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."
# Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.
# The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.
# Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.
# The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.
# Charlton Heston as president of the NRA is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.
# Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.
# We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.
# Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
# Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
# Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.
# "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people, which is why the police need them but "civilians" do not.
# When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.
# Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.
# When Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands," they don't mean you. Really.

*silently applauding, too*

I really would like to see the (reliable) sources that gun ownership reduces crime, in my professional career I have worked as a forensic pathologist in germany, which does not allow pivate gun ownership -as a general rule-, and there was less violent crime, less rape, less murder

I would like to see any sources that gun control reduces crime.

What were crime rates in Germany before gun control?

The majority of gun violence in the US is related to illegal drug trafficking. Most of the victims of gun violence are young, black, urban males. And most of the perpetrators of the gun violence are young, black, urban males.

If whites were killing blacks at that rate, there would be a worldwide outcry that genocide was being committed.

As it is, they are killing each other in a frenzy. I can't say it's for lack of the government trying to give them a hand up (affirmative action, etc., that was supposed to help). Other ethnic groups (Asians in particular, who were set upon in the US since their arrival in the late 1800s, by legal and illegal means) seem to have prospered despite the fact that they arrived penniless, were forced into ghettos, forbidden to own land, discriminated against, etc. Jews, Asians, etc. - they seem to have done quite well.

I think it's time that instead of blaming an inanimate object, such as a firearm, people take a look at the way they live, the way they plan their lives, and the way they raise their children, long before saying, "well if we had less guns and more police, things would be better".

If it were true that less guns and more police made things better, then the city of Washington D.C. would be orders of magnitude safer than the suburbs. There are five times as many police per 1000 people in DC. There are only 250,000 DC residents, and over a million residents in the suburbs in Fairfax County. People in Fairfax County are not only free to buy guns, but may carry pistols openly, and easily get concealed carry licenses. The people in DC can't even own a slingshot, much less any firearm.

It's not even a class issue. It's a plain and simple fact that there is a major social problem within the African American community - and NO ONE except Bill Cosby has even addressed it. It would be considered racism for any non-black to say what Bill Cosby has said, and right now, no black politician is going to back what he said.

Until then, you can pass all the gun laws you want in the US. It won't do ANY good for the nation as a whole, and certainly won't slow down the majority of the gun violence that is destroying the black population.

"I could present half a dozen uses, and the next step would be to dismiss them as "pointless" or "you don't NEED to"... statements."

Good points, however, the mistake you're making is treating the gun-grabbers argument as legitimate, approaching this with the mind that you've got to prove that ownership of firearms is legitimate. This mindset, translated into law allowed South Africa (during Apartheid) to stop black ownership of firearms.

It is not for you to prove that you've a purpose that he deems legitimate. There's no evidence that you have or would committ a crime, with, or without a firearm. Clearly, you're a sound member of society, and therefore, free to do as you please provided it harms no one else.

Guns are illegal here in norway, so only the army and the police have them (legally), so does this mean that a genocide is planned? Also saying 'is known to happen when...' is misguiding, as 'Murder is known to happen when someone walks their dog', or 'wars are known to break out when it rains'. Genocides are known to happen when it rains too, so we should ban rain. Do you see the meaninglessness of saying that 'something is known to happen when...'?

Anyone with half a brain can see that while not all gun bans lead to genocide, all genocides are preceeded by a gun ban. That fact alone makes anyone who would advocate banning civilian ownership of firearms suspicious.

Indeed, the connection between gun control in the US and the Ku Klux Klowns makes gun control advocacy suspicious. The US's first gun control measures, passed by southern states after the civil war, were intended to protect Ku Klux Klowns from the people they terrorised. They used various methods, including twisting the definition of the Second Ammendment, direct bans on freed slaves owning firearms, banning revolvers except the "Army and Navy Model" (ex-Confederate soldiers already had these from the war, and rich whites could buy them easily, but they were beyond the pocket of freed slaves), and purely subjective measures (applying to the authorities, who, in the case of a black applicant would simply conjure a reason to say no)

Ah, the "gun has no use but to kill people" arguement.

I could present half a dozen uses, and the next step would be to dismiss them as "pointless" or "you don't NEED to"... statements.Sure. My arguements would be irrelevant because they are from me. :rolleyes:
And note how I said If you can show me a good number of other uses for a gun besides shooting or injuring or threatening to do either of those, you can use the rope arguement.and not "a gun has no use but to kill people so get rid of it."

Target shootingBasically practicing using a gun. On it's own, that arguement is worthless.
huntingIf hunting doesn't include killing or injuring things, please correct me.
relaxationExplain this please. It's not that I doubt you find it relaxing, I'd just like some specific references to it.
varmint controlI doubt you want to impress the varmints away with your gun, so I'm pretty sure this includes killing or injuring things.
skeet/trap shootingTechnically, practicing using a gun.
plinkingAs target shooting and skeet/trap shooting.
Basically, none of these are reasonable uses or uses that don't involve injuring or killing things. So technically, the rope arguement still isn't valid, as I've pointed out before.
I'm not using these to advocate banning guns, just to prove that the rope arguement is bullshit. ;)

Criminals tend to be more violent. There is also the problems of illegal immigration, drugs, poverty, a violence encouraging criminal culture, etc.

Noone here endorses "giving everyone guns". The point of the matter is that many want to disarm the people who actually follow the laws leaving them at the mercy of criminals.

But isn't it more efficent to lower the povetry rates, and eliminate many of the other factors than giving the private person a gun?

I think it would be better to teach the children the dangers of guns, and discourage gun-use from young age. Legally selling guns does not disencourage a gun-culture like the one in america. This gun-culture plays a large role in the violence and murders, I think.

hit the mark, right sissy? Oh yes, if in argumentative trouble with a german quote Hitler...history wasn´t your best subject at school, right?

hey only 50 million dead think it about no guns

1) Target shooting is training to shoot at people. How the hell is that not related to shooting people?

2) Relaxion!? Are you some short of maniac?

3) So you shoot rats? Doesn't that just leave holes everywhere? There are other ways to controll vermin.

Also, you don't need a handgun for hunting, nor many other weapons people possess.

Did I call this one or what? Even an insult thrown in there to boot.

1) Target shooting is not "training to shoot at people". That is generalization made by someone who obviously knows nothing about it.

2) Actually I'm 5'10" and quite sane.

3) "Varmint" does not just include rats. If you actually knew something about it, it would include feral animals of many sorts.

You must be one of those people who like the Gov't to decide what you "need".

I would like to see any sources that gun control reduces crime.

What were crime rates in Germany before gun control?Pretty bad. There were uprisings by communists and nationalists all the time, hence there being a difficulty in properly gathering statistics on anything ;)

You're right, some criminals would still have guns. But not nearly as many. In the UK we banned handguns after the Dunblane school shooting, and let me tell you there are now very, very few gun related deaths (around 65 per year in the UK compared to around 11,000 per year in the US {1 in every 923,000 in the UK compared to 1 in every 26,000 in the US}).

The US should have had the sense to ban handguns after horrible events like a school shooting or other mass murder using guns, but of course you've got that misplaced pride in the constitution which stops you. And you can't go against the constitution, can you?

Unless it's to chip away at civil liberties like same-sex marriage, of course.
11,000 per year check your numbers

74 percent of all Part I violent felonies in the US (rape, robbery, murder, aggravated assault) are committed with NO WEAPON WHATSOEVER.
Again, totally misleading information.

Firearms are used in almost 70% of all US murders.

In Virginia in 2003, 72.6% of murders were comitted with firearms. In 1999, the percentage was 66.5%.

Firearms were used in 52% of robberies in Virginia in 2003.

A firearm was used in 57.9% of family and intimate partner homicides. In 1999, the percentage was 50.6%.

In 2003, 21 of 23 (91.3%) of murder/homicides in Virginia were comitted with a firearm.

Paints a slightly different picture?

hey only 50 million dead think it about no gunsHere's a post by LazyHippies on that:
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9687109&postcount=154

But isn't it more efficent to lower the povetry rates, and eliminate many of the other factors than giving the private person a gun?

I think it would be better to teach the children the dangers of guns, and discourage gun-use from young age. Legally selling guns does not disencourage a gun-culture like the one in america. This gun-culture plays a large role in the violence and murders, I think.

It depends on what gun culture. In Virginia, the gun culture amongst ethnic groups that are NOT African-American generally leads to use of firearms in sport and hunting - teaching "responsible" gun use and gun safety. Despite the fact that Fairfax County (for example) has open and concealed carry of pistols, and a very high gun ownership rate, we have HALF the police of Montgomery County, Maryland (a demographically identical neighboring jurisdiction), 65 percent LESS violent crime, and fewer murders. All this despite the fact that you can't carry a gun legally in Maryland (they NEVER issue the permits there).

And in Washington, DC - just across the river - and in Prince Georges County, Maryland - two heavily African-American populations - there are no guns allowed - and yet they experience extreme rates of firearm homicide and violent crime.

There is no "one" gun culture. It is possible to have guns around and not have people running up and down the street shooting each other. I carry a pistol every day (I'm not a policeman). And I've used it successfully in self defense without killing anyone.

But isn't it more efficent to lower the povetry rates, and eliminate many of the other factors than giving the private person a gun?

I think it would be better to teach the children the dangers of guns, and discourage gun-use from young age. Legally selling guns does not disencourage a gun-culture like the one in america. This gun-culture plays a large role in the violence and murders, I think.

What is this about "giving a private person a gun"? I would be nice to reduce poverty rates, etc. to help reduce crime but I feel that a law-abiding citizen should be able to have the choice to defend themselves against criminals.

It would be better to teach children firearm safety at a young age and encourage responsibility and accountability for ones own actions instead of encouraging a nanny state and victim mentalities.

The "Gun Culture" in the US encourages following the laws, discipline, and self-reliance. What you're confusing it with is the Criminal Culture.

Did I call this one or what? Even an insult thrown in there to boot.

1) Target shooting is not "training to shoot at people". That is generalization made by someone who obviously knows nothing about it.

2) Actually I'm 5'10" and quite sane.

3) "Varmint" does not just include rats. If you actually knew something about it, it would include feral animals of many sorts.

You must be one of those people who like the Gov't to decide what you "need".

1) Allowing training of use of firearms encourages the use of guns, and therefore armed crimes.

2) You oblivously understand that I meant 'sort'. The 'h' was a product of an over-sensitive keyboard. Also, english is not my first language(see, I spelled that wrong).

3) I am aware of this, and only used rats as an example. There are other methods of killing them, and you don't need handguns for this, nor many other weapons (see my other post. You know, the on you replied to).

You must be one of the people who like to think that owning a gun makes you immune to attacks, and thinks that you can draw a gun faster than any crminal.

Guns are illegal here in norway, so only the army and the police have them (legally),

just to point out guns are NOT illegal in norway, infact norway has a very healthy hunting industry.

http://www.brreg.no/english/registers/hunter/faq.html

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/andrew.html

No type of firearm is banned in Norway, however the type of firearm you can own is dictated by the use to which it will be put:

* Hunting or Vermin Control: any shotgun and any rifle except military style semi-auto rifles.
* Target Shooting: any shotgun, rifle or pistol appropriate to the type of shooting. For example you wouldn't be granted a permit for a pistol if you were a member of a Skeet Club.
* Collecting: any type of firearm (including full-auto). In recent years collectors have been asked to define their "Area of Interest". A collector who has as an area of interest of "German Military Weapons 1890 - 1945" would be allowed to collect full-auto Schmeissers, Maxims, etc. A collector who has as an area of interest of "Winchester Rifles" would be limited to rifles from Winchester.
* Members of the armed forces (this also includes reservists and part-timers) are entitled to a permit for any gun, except full-auto.

The minimum age for acquisition is:
18 years for rifles and shotguns (16 years with parental consent).
21 years for pistols.

To acquire a rifle or shotgun for hunting you must first have passed the hunter safety course (Jegerprove).

To acquire a rifle shotgun or pistol you must have been a member of a pistol club for six months, have shot at least 15 times (with the club's guns) and have passed a gun safety course.

To gain collector status you must first have a collection (Catch 22 eh!). The collection could be of antique guns, or deactivated guns, or even militaria like uniforms or bayonets. When the collection exceeds 25 guns you have to install extra security at home, and the police have to approve this. Guns in a collection can be fired.

Oh, and by the way silencers are available over the counter - no registration or anything. The use of a silencer is seen as an act of good neighbourliness.

A gun acquired for one purpose can be used for other purposes (as long as it is legal). For example a collector could go hunting with one of his rifles, whilst a hunter could use her shotgun for shooting trap.

You must provide secure storage for you gun at home. When the house is unoccupied the gun must be stored unloaded and locked up (or a vital part removed). The ammunition must be locked up separately from the gun. The police may inspect your storage and if they consider it inadequate make recommendations as to improving it.

About one adult in eight possesses a registered firearm. There are large numbers of (legally) unregistered guns in addition to these. Somewhere between one household in three and one in four have a gun. The government supports target shooting with direct subsidies of millions of kroner each year. Large numbers of skilled riflemen are seen as beneficial to the nation's defence - the fullbore rifle association has some 200,000 members (Not bad for a country with 4.4 million population).

your going to make up a lie, make sure nobody else can catch you in it.

America or not, it is you who is wrong and you are obnoxious to boot.

Had you read my post, you would have noticed that I was talking about the US Consitution. So saying "America or not" is pointless. THAT'S EXACLTY AND ONLY WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. I do not care how they do it in your country. My post was about the US Consitution, and was in response to someone else's post about the US Consitution.

And in the context of the US Consitutions, which is what I was talking about, firearm onwership is universal, and can't be legislated away. It's a natural right that belongs to all men, and it can't be infringed. Which is why they put it in there.

A little study, and you too could be an intelligent mammal.

Basically, none of these are reasonable uses or uses that don't involve injuring or killing things. So technically, the rope arguement still isn't valid, as I've pointed out before.
I'm not using these to advocate banning guns, just to prove that the rope arguement is bullshit. ;)

Like I said, I produced half-a dozen uses that don't involve killing people and they were dismissed.

just to point out guns are NOT illegal in norway, infact norway has a very healthy hunting industry.

http://www.brreg.no/english/registers/hunter/faq.html

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/andrew.html



your going to make up a lie, make sure nobody else can catch you in it.

Norway must have a massive murder rate then. Oh, it doesn't? Go figure.
:)

You must be one of the people who like to think that owning a gun makes you immune to attacks, and thinks that you can draw a gun faster than any crminal.

It has worked three times for me. In each case, the criminal was not armed with a firearm (in fact, in 74 percent of violent felonies, the criminal WILL not have any weapon at all other than brute strength).

The situations were resolved without gunfire or calling the police. I was not victimized and the criminal failed to commit his crime.

But, I'm sure you would rather that I was victimized. Drawing a gun in time only requires a minimum of awareness of your surroundings, and having a gun.

just to point out guns are NOT illegal in norway, infact norway has a very healthy hunting industry.

http://www.brreg.no/english/registers/hunter/faq.html

http://www.dvc.org.uk/~johnny/dunblane/andrew.html



your going to make up a lie, make sure nobody else can catch you in it.

I admit (see, I can do that, unlike too many people in the world) that I described that badly. What I meant was except for use in hunting and the like. I appologise for this misunderstandment. :D Don't shoot me (This is not to offend anyone, it is only a joke)

[Edit] Also, something is wrong about the statics there. There isn't anything near 1 of 8 adults that own a firearm here.
Are you sure your links are reliable?

If your going to make up a lie, make sure nobody else can catch you in it.

Like I said, I produced half-a dozen uses that don't involve killing people and they were dismissed.People. I never said anything about people. I said things. My arguement was that a rope has useful purposes other than entertainment in addition to being used to kill things while a gun does not. That's why said comparison between a gun and a rope is erroneous. Tools aren't there for entertainment, so technically, skeet shooting and all that wasn't a reasonable reason when compared to a rope.
I have nothing against hunting or shooting at properly designated areas. I did, however, have a problem with someone comparing a gun to a rope and pretending a gun has the same validity and usefulness as a rope has.

What country are you from that your constitution gives you the right to torure children? I'm in the US and no such right exists, however the second amendment that DOES however grant US the right to bare arms.


Wait a minute - do you support laws against torturing children? You do? Well then, you are voluntarily giving up your right to torture children, and by your own admission are a complete and utter half wit.

By the way, despite what the anti intellectuals have to say about how all people who went to college are stupid, just because they themselves were too dumb to get in, generally people who can be educated well enough to become doctors or scientists are intelligent.

1) Allowing training of use of firearms encourages the use of guns, and therefore armed crimes.

Prove it. Criminals tend not to practice very much.

2) You oblivously understand that I meant 'sort'. The 'h' was a product of an over-sensitive keyboard. Also, english is not my first language(see, I spelled that wrong).

And it was still an insult so I gave it the respect it deserved.

3) I am aware of this, and only used rats as an example. There are other methods of killing them, and you don't need handguns for this, nor many other weapons (see my other post. You know, the on you replied to).

And I could provide examples of many varmints that a light rifle or pistol are better than many poisons or traps and more where a heavier weapon is needed.

You must be one of the people who like to think that owning a gun makes you immune to attacks, and thinks that you can draw a gun faster than any crminal.

Nope, I just prefer having the option of defending myself and my family from criminals w/o having to rely on the Gov't. I also do this thing called "training" to improve my skills. Once again, criminals tend not to practice very often.

Norway must have a massive murder rate then. Oh, it doesn't? Go figure.
:)So I take it you wouldn't mind if gun use were restricted in the US as it were in Norway?

People. I never said anything about people. I said things. My arguement was that a rope has useful purposes other than entertainment in addition to being used to kill things while a gun does not. That's why said comparison between a gun and a rope is erroneous. Tools aren't there for entertainment, so technically, skeet shooting and all that wasn't a reasonable reason when compared to a rope.
I have nothing against hunting or shooting at properly designated areas. I did, however, have a problem with someone comparing a gun to a rope and pretending a gun has the same validity and usefulness as a rope has.

Guns are useful for self-defense. I train victims of domestic violence to carry and use guns.

Unlike their fellow victims who fail to do so, none of the women I've trained has ever:

1. had to shoot anyone
2. been victimized again
3. been killed by their abuser

I have used a firearm three times in self-defense, without shooting anyone. In each case, the situation was resolved without problem.

Still think that a gun has no useful purpose? Some of the women I trained would be dead already had they not had a firearm.

I admit (see, I can do that, unlike too many people in the world) that I described that badly. What I meant was except for use in hunting and the like. I appologise for this misunderstandment. :D Don't shoot me (This is not to offend anyone, it is only a joke)


let me quote you again


so if you ment

except for use in hunting and the like

then why say

Guns are illegal here in norway, so only the army and the police have them (legally),

again. caught you in another lie, and now your trying to backpedal out of it.

i trust my figures alot more than anything you say Drake.

Guns are useful for self-defense. I train victims of domestic violence to carry and use guns.

Unlike their fellow victims who fail to do so, none of the women I've trained has ever:

1. had to shoot anyone
2. been victimized again
3. been killed by their abuser

I have used a firearm three times in self-defense, without shooting anyone. In each case, the situation was resolved without problem.

Still think that a gun has no useful purpose? Some of the women I trained would be dead already had they not had a firearm.You've completely missed my point. Go back and read my original post.

People. I never said anything about people. I said things. My arguement was that a rope has useful purposes other than entertainment in addition to being used to kill things while a gun does not. That's why said comparison between a gun and a rope is erroneous. Tools aren't there for entertainment, so technically, skeet shooting and all that wasn't a reasonable reason when compared to a rope.
I have nothing against hunting or shooting at properly designated areas. I did, however, have a problem with someone comparing a gun to a rope and pretending a gun has the same validity and usefulness as a rope has.

That's your mindset. You have "nothing against hunting or shooting at properly designated areas" which is another anti-gun arguement as the "properly designated areas" get smaller and smaller. You also dismiss a firearms value in defense of self and/or home.


Many tools can be used for entertainment. (I'm sure you only use your computer for work right) A firearm is a tool. A rope is a tool. A car is a tool. If any are used improperly or illegally, injury or death could result.

The fact is that gun control in Nazi germany was enacted in 1928 under the Weimar regime and was aimed at keeping the Nazis and other militant groups under control. It worked. The Nazis were unable to stage an armed revolution and had to wait until they came to power through democratic means.

Had the Jews been armed, would they have been able to stop the Nazis? Of course not! To think otherwise is ridiculous.

You haven't done enough study, that's obvious. The first gun control laws in Germany were in 1919 not 1928. The 1928 gun control laws were actually deregulation because the previous laws were MORE draconian. Look it up.

It wasn't until the Nazi's seize power that the Jews were disarmed. The 1928 laws allowed for regualtion, and the Jews STILL OWNED firearms.

And yes, had the Jews been armed they COULD have fought back when the Nazi's came to get them. At least then they had an option.

And yes, I think lies and deception are a bad thing. Please stop it. Or a tleast do a little study first.

So I take it you wouldn't mind if gun use were restricted in the US as it were in Norway?

Show me where I said that or are you just trying to put words in my mouth ?

Prove it. Criminals tend not to practice very much.



And it was still an insult so I gave it the respect it deserved.



And I could provide examples of many varmints that a light rifle or pistol are better than many poisons or traps and more where a heavier weapon is needed.



Nope, I just prefer having the option of defending myself and my family from criminals w/o having to rely on the Gov't. I also do this thing called "training" to improve my skills. Once again, criminals tend not to practice very often.

1) Prove that criminals doesn't usually practice more.

2) I appologise for that, but I still don't see how handling a fireare produces relaxion. Explain that.

3) "better than many poisons or traps" Many? That means there are some traps and poisons that are better. See?

I rely on the police and so does everyone I know (in this country), and no-one of them have been raped, robbed and killed yet. Still it is different in the states. Again, prove that criminals don't usually practice.

That's your mindset. You have "nothing against hunting or shooting at properly designated areas" which is another anti-gun arguement as the "properly designated areas" get smaller and smaller. You also dismiss a firearms value in defense of self and/or home.They don't get smaller because of me. And I never dismissed a firearms value when used in defense. That use is merely linked to its purpose of injuring or killing things. I asked for purposes that were reasonable or didn't have to do with killing or injuring things. This only has to do with the rope arguement.
Many tools can be used for entertainment. (I'm sure you only use your computer for work right) Actually, I'm not using my own computer at all, I'm using a library computer. (And computers are rather impractical weapons, if you ask me ;))
A firearm is a tool. A rope is a tool. A car is a tool. I never denied any of that.
If any are used improperly or illegally, injury or death could result.No disagreement. The point I was making was that guns had less "tool" purposes that didn't involve killing or injuring things than a rope, and therefore saying "might as well ban rope" was a bullshit arguement.

Show me where I said that or are you just trying to put words in my mouth ?I'm asking a question, not putting words in your mouth.

let me quote you again


so if you ment



then why say



again. caught you in another lie, and now your trying to backpedal out of it.

i trust my figures alot more than anything you say Drake.

Because I was hasty in my first post, and forgot something, and explained something badly. I make mistakes sometimes. Also I don't care if you belive me or not, and where do you live?

1) Prove that criminals doesn't usually practice more.

2) I appologise for that, but I still don't see how handling a fireare produces relaxion. Explain that.

3) "better than many poisons or traps" Many? That means there are some traps and poisons that are better. See?

I rely on the police and so does everyone I know (in this country), and no-one of them have been raped, robbed and killed yet. Still it is different in the states. Again, prove that criminals don't usually practice.

Statistically, in studies that span from 1970 to the present (most of which were conducted by police unions and police departments), the rule of thumb for who is more accurate and quick in using any firearm, police are now TAUGHT:

1. Civilian owners who are not habitually criminal are extremely good shots. Generally, twice to three times as good as the typical policeman.
2. Criminals. Generally, they hit their intended target twice as often as the typical policeman.
3. Policemen. Bottom ranking.

I shoot regularly with members of the Fairfax County Police, and have shot with the Montgomery County Police Tactical Team, and have shot with a tactical team from the Maryland State Police.

All of these represented the top level of expertise within their respective departments, and I had NO trouble beating them in competition.

Practice is what makes this possible. The typical policeman who is NOT on a tactical team fires 45 shots per year. I fire more than 1000 rounds in a single practice session.

1) Prove that criminals doesn't usually practice more.

2) I appologise for that, but I still don't see how handling a fireare produces relaxion. Explain that.

3) "better than many poisons or traps" Many? That means there are some traps and poisons that are better. See?

I rely on the police and so does everyone I know (in this country), and no-one of them have been raped, robbed and killed yet. Still it is different in the states. Again, prove that criminals don't usually practice.

1.In the US the average sportsman practices from between 15 to thirty days a years w/ a firearm. Are you honestly trying to tell me you think criminals practice more? You haven't proved that citizens practicing encourages crime.

2. The concentration needed for a accurate shot I find very relaxing, as do many sportsman.

3. and in "many" instances, a firearm is better. See?

There is no rape, robbery, or murder in your country? Wow, what a magical land you live in. I live a jalf hour away from the nearest police station. Should I rely on the police to show up in time to stop a criminal from entering my house?

Statistically, in studies that span from 1970 to the present (most of which were conducted by police unions and police departments), the rule of thumb for who is more accurate and quick in using any firearm, police are now TAUGHT:

1. Civilian owners who are not habitually criminal are extremely good shots. Generally, twice to three times as good as the typical policeman.
2. Criminals. Generally, they hit their intended target twice as often as the typical policeman.
3. Policemen. Bottom ranking.

I shoot regularly with members of the Fairfax County Police, and have shot with the Montgomery County Police Tactical Team, and have shot with a tactical team from the Maryland State Police.

All of these represented the top level of expertise within their respective departments, and I had NO trouble beating them in competition.

Practice is what makes this possible. The typical policeman who is NOT on a tactical team fires 45 shots per year. I fire more than 1000 rounds in a single practice session.

This only proves that the police is underfunded, and how can you claim that since the civilian is better at using firearms than the police, then you are better than a criminal? I would not be suprised if the criminals are at average much more profident with a gun than a police-officer.

I'm asking a question, not putting words in your mouth.

Your trying to move the goalsposts in the arguement. I would like firearm laws like the state of Vermont.

In Virginia in the year 2003, $2,232,263 worth of firearms were stolen!!

That is a lot of firearms in the hands of criminals due to irresponsible LAC? :eek:

That is from ONE State that accounts for only 2.3% of the US population.

If you extrapolate that to the entire US, that would represent a theft of $93 Million worth of firearms in the hands of criminals.

and where do you live?

im an american national but ive lived in Notodden for the last 12 years.

trust me, i know norwegian gun laws, i live here.

i own guns here.

They don't get smaller because of me. And I never dismissed a firearms value when used in defense. That use is merely linked to its purpose of injuring or killing things. I asked for purposes that were reasonable or didn't have to do with killing or injuring things. This only has to do with the rope arguement.
Actually, I'm not using my own computer at all, I'm using a library computer. (And computers are rather impractical weapons, if you ask me ;))
I never denied any of that.
No disagreement. The point I was making was that guns had less "tool" purposes that didn't involve killing or injuring things than a rope, and therefore saying "might as well ban rope" was a bullshit arguement.

95% of the defense uses did not involve the firing of the weapon at all. No injuries or killing of anything. While "banning rope" may be exagerated, it is an adequate comparison for the banning of a tool because of the misuse of it by criminals or those w/ mental problems.

Your trying to move the goalsposts in the arguement.You seem to know me much better than I do. Maybe you could continue any form of conversation for me then.
I would like firearm laws like the state of Vermont.See? Now I have an answer.

In Virginia in the year 2003, $2,232,263 worth of firearms were stolen!!

That is a lot of firearms in the hands of criminals due to irresponsible LAC? :eek:

That is from ONE State that accounts for only 2.3% of the US population.

If you extrapolate that to the entire US, that would represent a theft of $93 Million worth of firearms in the hands of criminals.

Is this from you multi-stepped estimate source again? How many degrees of separation were there on it?

Why did crime drop in the US even though ownership increased?

1.In the US the average sportsman practices from between 15 to thirty days a years w/ a firearm. Are you honestly trying to tell me you think criminals practice more? You haven't proved that citizens practicing encourages crime.

2. The concentration needed for a accurate shot I find very relaxing, as do many sportsman.

3. and in "many" instances, a firearm is better. See?

There is no rape, robbery, or murder in your country? Wow, what a magical land you live in. I live a jalf hour away from the nearest police station. Should I rely on the police to show up in time to stop a criminal from entering my house?

1) You haven't proven that they don't.

2) I you feel that way, I'm not going to argue against that.

No, but there is a low crime rate. I should probally left out that, since it didn't really contribute to anything, but I was trying to say that not owning a firearm magically makes you a victim of random crimes (not the last time I was in the states, anyways).

95% of the defense uses did not involve the firing of the weapon at all. No injuries or killing of anything. While "banning rope" may be exagerated, it is an adequate comparison for the banning of a tool because of the misuse of it by criminals or those w/ mental problems.I did include a "threatening thereof" in the first post in that arguement. Maybe you missed that. My only point was that banning a rope was exagerated and was pretty stupid. It was not an adequate example, because a rope is a much less dangerous tool than a gun.

im an american national but ive lived in Notodden for the last 12 years.

trust me, i know norwegian gun laws, i live here.

i own guns here.

I am possitive that there isn't an average firearm in one of three households.

Are you sure the statics are from the entire country, and not a limited area?

1) You haven't proven that they don't.

2) I you feel that way, I'm not going to argue against that.

No, but there is a low crime rate. I should probally left out that, since it didn't really contribute to anything, but I was trying to say that not owning a firearm magically makes you a victim of random crimes (not the last time I was in the states, anyways).

The studies were quoted by Seirra. You still have yet to prove anything.

There is a low crime rate and high ownership in Norway. In the US, the anti-gunners for years pushed the whole "no-resistance" to crime concept. Even though it failed miserably, there are still those that would disarm citizens and prevent them from defending themselves.

I did include a "threatening thereof" in the first post in that arguement. Maybe you missed that. My only point was that banning a rope was exagerated and was pretty stupid. It was not an adequate example, because a rope is a much less dangerous tool than a gun.

Statistically, a car is a much more dangerous tool than a firearm and yet we let 16 yr olds drive.

I am possitive that there isn't an average firearm in one of three households.

Are you sure the statics are from the entire country, and not a limited area?

You were also "positive" only the police and military had guns a few posts back.

I am possitive that there isn't an average firearm in one of three households.

Are you sure the statics are from the entire country, and not a limited area?


for the entire country its the same.

1 in 3 or 1 in 4, 33% to 25%

roughly the same as US gun ownership (per capita)

im sure some areas have below that, just like some areas are above that.

i know for a fact northern norway is much higher while around oslo is lower.

Statistically, a car is a much more dangerous tool than a firearm and yet we let 16 yr olds drive.No "we" don't. Now, a car is a much better example for a sound arguement than a rope. That's all I was getting at. ;)