NationStates Jolt Archive

I hate it when people use the annual death toll caused by guns in the U.S. as a reason to control them more strictly, or even worse, to ban owning them all together. Well, they are designed to kill people. If they dont kill people then they are obviously a defective product! The manufacturer who produces a gun that fails to kill a man in at least the first three shots should be held accountable!

What do you think?

I hate it when people use the annual death toll caused by guns in the U.S. as a reason to control them more strictly, or even worse, to ban owning them all together.

Yes cuz it sucks so much when a person buys a gun legally and goes and shoots his girlfriend simply for making eye contact with some other dude at a bar!

Death toll be damned! We have the right to shoot anything we want when we want! Never mind that guns are designed for only one purpose! (to hurt)

We must have guns! The bigger the better! (oh, I'm sorry, does that sound like penis envy?!) NO! Because in the US, we envy nobody's penises!

My god this whole thing is dumb.

Yes cuz it sucks so much when a person buys a gun legally and goes and shoots his girlfriend simply for making eye contact with some other dude at a bar!

Death toll be damned! We have the right to shoot anything we want when we want! Never mind that guns are designed for only one purpose! (to hurt)

We must have guns! The bigger the better! (oh, I'm sorry, does that sound like penis envy?!) NO! Because in the US, we envy nobody's penises!

Yes! You totally get me don't you?

My god this whole thing is dumb.

Oh, well you just shat in your Easter basket.

Oh, well you just ruined it all.

I'm really good at that. :D

Well, they are designed to kill people. If they dont kill people then they are obviously a defective product! The manufacturer who produces a gun that fails to kill a man in at least the first three shots should be held accountable!

What do you think?

I think you raised a point that I've never seen raised before. An obscenely true point.

Kudos

I hate it when people use the annual death toll caused by guns in the U.S. as a reason to control them more strictly, or even worse, to ban owning them all together. Well, they are designed to kill people. If they dont kill people then they are obviously a defective product! The manufacturer who produces a gun that fails to kill a man in at least the first three shots should be held accountable!


Congratulations. That is the most absurd argument I have ever read to justify anything, ever. And I've read a lot of stupid arguments in these fora.

Is a gun defective because it works when your six-year-old son finds yours, plays with it and accidentally kills himself? Or when you're killed by someone in a fit of rage, who would not have killed you if they hadn't got a gun?

Just one set of statistics for you:
The number per capita of unintentional homicides[i] by gunshot in the USA in 1999 was 7.56 times that of Canada (i.e. 756%), 34 times that of England (3400%), and 102 times that of Japan (i.e. 10 200%). (Source:http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm)

I don't think your precious guns were designed for [i]that, were they?

The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
Accidental deaths per physician is 17.1%

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

Guns
The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.0188%

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

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

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

I'M STARTING A PETITION TO BAN THE USE OF DOCTORS! THEY ARE AN ISSUE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED BEFORE GUNS!!! :p

"Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

Silly person, you :)
(I wasn't going to look at your website, but now you got me interested :D)

Silly person, you :)
(I wasn't going to look at your website, but now you got me interested :D)

Hook line and sinker :)

I read that somewhere else and put it here. Thought it was an on topic thing to lighten up the issue :)

Our site is http://www.comedydogs.com/ - better than sex. Go to it, and it just might enlarge your penis

(and yes, that above statement is an advertisement. We are really selling out :P)

Go to it, and it just might enlarge your penis


:eek:
I'd rather not...
though... the 'enlarged' form of 'penisless' is still 'penisless', or is it not? :p

edit: oh... hehe... right. almost forgot :

[/hijack] ;)

0 x infinity = 0

so you're all sweet

IT's still better than sex though....

0 x infinity = 0

so you're all sweet

IT's still better than sex though....
*checks, just to make sure*
phew.
you were right :)


... uh. i wasn't talking about the sex part, but the first thing. you know. you said it. uh... you got me all confused now!

JUST GO TO THE SITE DAMMIT!

Just kidding...

*points gun at Alinania's head*

I was just kidding about just kidding

http://www.comedydogs.com/

In the US. 30% more accidents involving injury or death occur from people taking falls on stairs than what occurs with firearms. WE MUST BAN STAIRS & THERE USE! Ted Kennedy is the only one that should be allowed to use them, & you should have to pass extensive tests both psychological & physical to be able to own one; especially those treachous concealed steps. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE STAIRWAYS KILL PEOPLE!

JUST GO TO THE SITE DAMMIT!

Just kidding...

*points gun at Alinania's head*

I was just kidding about just kidding

http://www.comedydogs.com/


easy there! I took a look at your site.
happy now? :p


...so which one's you?

Red tie

Gun Control, eh? Sorry, you have to bypass the second amendment to do that. Good luck.

Guns dont kill people, people kill people.
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/4010/grey17yj.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

In the US. 30% more accidents involving injury or death occur from people taking falls on stairs than what occurs with firearms. WE MUST BAN STAIRS & THERE USE! Ted Kennedy is the only one that should be allowed to use them, & you should have to pass extensive tests both psychological & physical to be able to own one; especially those treachous concealed steps. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE STAIRWAYS KILL PEOPLE!

PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE? My what a novel idea?

PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE? My what a novel idea?

Not in Jurassic Park they dont...

Not in Jurassic Park they dont...

Yes, & they should have stole a line from the movie JAWS! I NEED A BIGGER GUN!!!

Size matters not! ;)

Size matters not! ;)

You must be a guy, with a challenge or a girl who's limited in partners!

Size matters not! ;)

Alright, Yoda. You can think whatever you want.

Yes, The Germans couldve taken out the english chargers alot better with handguns than they did with machine guns, couldnt they.

Your argument is void now, Yoda.

The main concern on the gun death toll not only in the us but all over the world should be who owns the gun... selling guns to irresponsable people is the main cause of all those deaths. dumb ppl do dumb things. dumb ppl with guns do even dumber things.

Good point.

Eg:Sucking on the muzzle flash, and pulling the trigger.

The main concern on the gun death toll not only in the us but all over the world should be who owns the gun... selling guns to irresponsable people is the main cause of all those deaths

There is nothing that can be done to stop that. People will always have guns, even the stupid ones. And, well, its impossible to have gun control. As much as the world needs it, its just a fairy tale

Yes...for christmas, im going to ask santa for a 2s7 Pion, complete with 100 shells and a instruction manual.

i'll just stick with the gun they gave me at work - Glock 17

There is nothing that can be done to stop that. People will always have guns, even the stupid ones. And, well, its impossible to have gun control. As much as the world needs it, its just a fairy tale

That's bullshit. It is perfectly possible to have a gun control, though it would be pretty much harder in USA now, as the gun culture and overall situation is already so upfucked. But, if you bother to take your ignorant head out of your ignorant GUN BARREL, you will realise that Europe has a well working gun control system. Expect Russia and Balkans perhaps.

you mean except russia and the balkans...
of course that's bullshit.
I'm from romania and being north of the balkans and south-west of russia i say that gun control is pretty good there too. so sit down and shut up before i blow your fuckin` head off.

the only thing blowing the US` crime rate to enormous proportions is the death penalty. i must hand it to the american gov., you lead the list of the death-penalty states of the world. you're in the same list with congo, irak, afganistan, and other such states...way to go, land of the free!

Yes...if the death penalty was enforced here in the UK, then this country would be a much better place.

Yes cuz it sucks so much when a person buys a gun legally and goes and shoots his girlfriend simply for making eye contact with some other dude at a bar!

Death toll be damned! We have the right to shoot anything we want when we want! Never mind that guns are designed for only one purpose! (to hurt)

We must have guns! The bigger the better! (oh, I'm sorry, does that sound like penis envy?!) NO! Because in the US, we envy nobody's penises!

My god this whole thing is dumb.

It would be dumb, but the fact is that the US murder rate and violent crime rate has been steadily going down over the past 10 years.

Not only that, but the number of firearms has increased from 200 million firearms to 300 million firearms. And still the rate goes down. By 63 percent. If it was true that more guns caused more crime and more murder, then why is the rate plummeting while the number of guns is radically increasing?

So-called "assault weapons ban" overturned, and still the rate goes down.

93 percent of violent crime is committed WITHOUT a firearm.

Nearly half of all firearms crime, including firearms murder, is black on black violence in cities where firearms are severely restricted.

I've posted the links to the Department of Justice Crime Statistics so many times... and the facts haven't changed.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/wuvc01.txt

Highlights

For nonfatal violent crimes, offenders were more likely to
have a firearm than a knife or club.From 1993 to 2001 the
rate of firearm violence fell 63%

* Approximately half of all robberies, about a quarter of
all assaults, and roughly a twelfth of all rapes/sexual
assaults involved an armed assailant. About 90% of
homicide victims were killed with a weapon.

* Firearm violence rates for blacks age 12 or older (8.4
per 1,000 blacks) were 40% higher than rates for Hispanics
(6.0)

200% higher than rates for whites (2.8 per
1,000).

* Blacks were about 9 times more likely than whites to be
murdered with a firearm.

* On average black victims of firearm violence were 3
years younger than white victims -- 29 versus 32.

* From 1993 through 2001 blacks accounted for 46% of
homicide victims and 54% of victims of firearm homicide but
12% of the U.S. population.

* The likelihood of an injury was the same for victims
facing armed and unarmed offenders (26%); serious injury
was more likely from armed offenders (7% versus 2%).

* From 1993 through 2001 the number of murders declined
36% while the number of murders by firearms dropped 41%.

* From 1994 through 1999, the years for which data are
available, about 7 in 10 murders at school involved some
type of firearm, and approximately 1 in 2 murders at
school involved a handgun.

Genius!! Just ban black people, that'l make everything alright! Everyone knows that they cause 100% of all black on black crime! (sarcasm, for those of you who can't tell)

If you REALLY want to reduce crime in the US, here's what to do;

Stop racial discrimination in the police force and courts (that means YOU, Florida).

Set up a welfare system so poor people don't need to turn to crime to get money, and can actually afford medical care, food and clothing.

Aim to educate EVERYONE, so no-one's too dumb to get work and make sure everyone knows that , hey, shooting people is WRONG.

And finally, to pay for all this, tax the hell out of the gun owners. Tax guns, ammo and licences. You can use all the police you freed up from arresting black Democrats in Florida to collect it all. This will ensure that only rich WASPs can afford guns, and that'l make everyone happy. (or at least everyone who can vote, which its practically the same thing.)

Incidently, the 'right to bear arms' that you all seem so proud of was originally put into the constitution because the US was too poor to afford a standing army. Instead, they used militias, and gave everyone the right to have guns so that they could blow the hell out of the invading British. Well, you've got a standing army now, and you're no longer poor. And, frankly, we don't want your sucky country. There's too many alligators and tornados and you can't get a decent curry and you're all too loud. That's why we gave it back :).

In the US. 30% more accidents involving injury or death occur from people taking falls on stairs than what occurs with firearms. WE MUST BAN STAIRS & THERE USE! Ted Kennedy is the only one that should be allowed to use them, & you should have to pass extensive tests both psychological & physical to be able to own one; especially those treachous concealed steps. GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE STAIRWAYS KILL PEOPLE!

It's STAIRS DAMN IT! We must crack down on this senselous destruction, & of course the wheels of the bus.

Genius!! Just ban black people, that'l make everything alright! Everyone knows that they cause 100% of all black on black crime! (sarcasm, for those of you who can't tell)

If you REALLY want to reduce crime in the US, here's what to do;

Stop racial discrimination in the police force and courts (that means YOU, Florida).

Set up a welfare system so poor people don't need to turn to crime to get money, and can actually afford medical care, food and clothing.

Aim to educate EVERYONE, so no-one's too dumb to get work and make sure everyone knows that , hey, shooting people is WRONG.

And finally, to pay for all this, tax the hell out of the gun owners. Tax guns, ammo and licences. You can use all the police you freed up from arresting black Democrats in Florida to collect it all. This will ensure that only rich WASPs can afford guns, and that'l make everyone happy. (or at least everyone who can vote, which its practically the same thing.)

Incidently, the 'right to bear arms' that you all seem so proud of was originally put into the constitution because the US was too poor to afford a standing army. Instead, they used militias, and gave everyone the right to have guns so that they could blow the hell out of the invading British. Well, you've got a standing army now, and you're no longer poor. And, frankly, we don't want your sucky country. There's too many alligators and tornados and you can't get a decent curry and you're all too loud. That's why we gave it back :).

You missed the part about preventing government from becoming so powerful that it would not honor & respect the wishes of the people!

I know, I know. Fact is, if someone who'd never heard of the US read the constitution they'd think it was some sort of beautiful liberal and democratic paradise.

As I posted before....Malcolm X advocated the private ownership of firearms as did the founding fathers. The first "gun control" laws were to keep guns away from Blacks who might dare to use them against the Klan.
(and NO those quotes I posted previously on the matter were NOT from Huey Newton the were from Malcolm X) I find the stance taken by the originator of this thread intresting and would LOVE to see it played out in a court.


Yes cuz it sucks so much when a person buys a gun legally and goes and shoots his girlfriend simply for making eye contact with some other dude at a bar!

Death toll be damned! We have the right to shoot anything we want when we want! Never mind that guns are designed for only one purpose! (to hurt)

We must have guns! The bigger the better! (oh, I'm sorry, does that sound like penis envy?!) NO! Because in the US, we envy nobody's penises!

My god this whole thing is dumb.

If you REALLY want to reduce crime in the US, here's what to do;

Stop racial discrimination in the police force and courts (that means YOU, Florida).

According to the statistics over the past 12 years, 94 percent of black people murdered are murdered by blacks. That's not something the police and courts are doing - they are doing it to themselves.

Set up a welfare system so poor people don't need to turn to crime to get money, and can actually afford medical care, food and clothing.
There is a welfare system. Designed by the Democratic Party. It isn't working. Next!

Aim to educate EVERYONE, so no-one's too dumb to get work and make sure everyone knows that , hey, shooting people is WRONG.
There are times when lethal force is moral, ethical, and correct. Everyone is supposed to go to school - education is compulsory here - but no one has to pass - if you drop out, that's your business.

And finally, to pay for all this, tax the hell out of the gun owners. Tax guns, ammo and licences. You can use all the police you freed up from arresting black Democrats in Florida to collect it all. This will ensure that only rich WASPs can afford guns, and that'l make everyone happy. (or at least everyone who can vote, which its practically the same thing.)
Since blacks account for 53 percent of firearm murders, we'll have to tax them first. Most states don't require firearm licenses, unless you plan to carry concealed.


Incidently, the 'right to bear arms' that you all seem so proud of was originally put into the constitution because the US was too poor to afford a standing army. Instead, they used militias, and gave everyone the right to have guns so that they could blow the hell out of the invading British. Well, you've got a standing army now, and you're no longer poor. And, frankly, we don't want your sucky country. There's too many alligators and tornados and you can't get a decent curry and you're all too loud. That's why we gave it back :).

Wrong. It was also to make sure that the Federal government would never have the ability to disarm the people - so that they would retain the means of overthrowing the government. Plenty of Federalist paper to that effect.

As I posted before....Malcolm X advocated the private ownership of firearms as did the founding fathers. The first "gun control" laws were to keep guns away from Blacks who might dare to use them against the Klan.

Yes, I know. I was kidding.

If you know me, you know that while I am not a gun owner, I am a fierce advocate of the 2nd Amendment.

Is a gun defective because it works when your six-year-old son finds yours, plays with it and accidentally kills himself? Or when you're killed by someone in a fit of rage, who would not have killed you if they hadn't got a gun?


I think you're confused. If people die the gun is working. Therefore, it would not be defective.

I don't think your precious guns were designed for that, were they?

Yes they were actually.

I hate it when people use the annual death toll caused by guns in the U.S. as a reason to control them more strictly, or even worse, to ban owning them all together. Well, they are designed to kill people. If they dont kill people then they are obviously a defective product! The manufacturer who produces a gun that fails to kill a man in at least the first three shots should be held accountable!

What do you think?

I've always been told by anti-gun control supporters that guns aren't designed to kill and that they reduce killing by providing self defence (often in the form of a deterant).

It always makes me doubt arguments when people on the same side argue totally opposite arguments.

And because something works in its aim is a really crappy reason to support something. That'd be similar to me arguing for the pro-choice side by saying "well, funnily enough they do kill babies! So lets support it because it works!". Or someone supporting a war by saying "well, yes, it does mean loads of people dying! That's the point!". Or supporting rape/murder because the rapist/murderer succeeds in his aims.

There are far better arguments. I really seriously doubt that's going to sway any supporters of gun control.

-snip-

I'm not asking, or looking for support.

That was my answer to "what do you think?".

guns don't kill people, rappers do

Yes they were actually.

So, you've just said explicitly that guns are designed to enable accidental homicides. Doesn't something strike you as slightly contradictory in that assertion?

Besides, your argument is nonsense. Take nuclear weapons. They are made specifically not to be used.

So, you've just said explicitly that guns are designed to enable accidental homicides. Doesn't something strike you as slightly contradictory in that assertion?

Brush up on your reading. I never said any such thing; I merely said that guns are made to kill people so a gun that does not accomplish this purpose is nothing more than a worthless lump of metal.


Besides, your argument is nonsense. Take nuclear weapons. They are made specifically not to be used.

Besides, I could care less what you think.

Lagalize conciled weapon to anyone 18 and up. End of story, tobic closed.

guns don't kill people, rappers do
So you're saying we should outlaw rap?

[QUOTE=Sierra BTHP]According to the statistics over the past 12 years, 94 percent of black people murdered are murdered by blacks. That's not something the police and courts are doing - they are doing it to themselves.
[\QUOTE]

Yeah, statistics collected by white middle class rich people? Oddly enough I wasn't suggesting that the police and the courts are out murdering people. I'm saying that if a black guy gets murdered there's an odds on chance that the coppers who catch him and the court who try hi will dismiss the case as just another gang problem. WHich, incidently, you wouldn't have if America wasn't a segregated country.


[QUOTE=Sierra BTHP]There is a welfare system. Designed by the Democratic Party. It isn't working. Next![\QUOTE]

No, it isn't, but instead of fixing it people run around going 'ooh welfare systems are a waste of time, they never work'. Newsflash, OTHER COUNTRIES EXIST that have working welfare systems and that don't tax their citizens into poverty! The main problem with the US welfare system is it's been designed by people who have no idea what it's like to be poor. Democrat or not it can't possibly have escaped your notice that the only people who get elected in the US are RICH or funded by big corporatins (or more commonly both). It's corrupt as hell!


[QUOTE=Sierra BTHP]There are times when lethal force is moral, ethical, and correct. Everyone is supposed to go to school - education is compulsory here - but no one has to pass - if you drop out, that's your business.[\QUOTE]

No, there's only one time when 'lethal force', or murder as we like to call it, is okay. WHen someone is trying to kill or hurt you or your family. Anything else is wrong, whether they're calling you names and you can't afford a lawyer, or they're robbing your house. THere's nothing wrong with self defence though - if someone's starting a fight, why not belt them one instead of shooting them? If it makes you feel any better, the hospital bills will probably cripple them more effectively than any bullet.
And as for education, well. If they actually bothered to enforce the compulsory school rules then, yeah, it might work.


And yes, all states should require gun licenses. At least then you'd know who has the guns.

Finally, we come back to the constitution. What a wonderful document. Designed to prevent oppression, discriminaton, extremism and any other infringement of people's basic human rights. Read it, have you?

If you wanted a simple alternative, you could just deport all black people, Mexicans, hispanics, and other ethnic minorities, all criminals and those of criminal intent, and trouble causers and immigrants. But the US would look just a tad empty if you did.

So you're saying we should outlaw rap?

I would not oppose such legislation...

Yeah, statistics collected by white middle class rich people? Oddly enough I wasn't suggesting that the police and the courts are out murdering people. I'm saying that if a black guy gets murdered there's an odds on chance that the coppers who catch him and the court who try hi will dismiss the case as just another gang problem. WHich, incidently, you wouldn't have if America wasn't a segregated country.



So the FBI, CDC, Census Beauro,DOJ, and hundreds of local LE offices are inherently racist? America is segregated? Where's your tin hat?

No, it isn't, but instead of fixing it people run around going 'ooh welfare systems are a waste of time, they never work'. Newsflash, OTHER COUNTRIES EXIST that have working welfare systems and that don't tax their citizens into poverty! The main problem with the US welfare system is it's been designed by people who have no idea what it's like to be poor. Democrat or not it can't possibly have escaped your notice that the only people who get elected in the US are RICH or funded by big corporatins (or more commonly both). It's corrupt as hell!!

So what's your solution to fix it?



No, there's only one time when 'lethal force', or murder as we like to call it, is okay. WHen someone is trying to kill or hurt you or your family. Anything else is wrong, whether they're calling you names and you can't afford a lawyer, or they're robbing your house. THere's nothing wrong with self defence though - if someone's starting a fight, why not belt them one instead of shooting them? If it makes you feel any better, the hospital bills will probably cripple them more effectively than any bullet.
And as for education, well. If they actually bothered to enforce the compulsory school rules then, yeah, it might work.

So Sierra said there are times when it's OK and then you said No but there are times when it's OK? You consider defending your own life or that of a family member (noticibly missing friends or even defending a strangers life) to be murder?


And yes, all states should require gun licenses. At least then you'd know who has the guns.

Right before the Gov't takes them away.

I'm very pro-gun control. Without good control, you'll never hit your target accurately.

[/hijack]

I'm very pro-gun control. Without good control, you'll never hit your target accurately.

[/hijack]

I put Gun Control into practice at least once a month. My groupings improve each time.

Americans wouldn't be so parnoid about registering their guns if registration didn't lead to confiscation. Don't register your guns people.

Okay, so I don't have the answers to everything. I'm suggesting that the polls may not be accurate. I'm suggesting that America wouldn't have such a race problem if people of different races mixed more and were encouraged to do so from an early age. Every country has racists, and they aren't all white either. WHat I'm bitchin about is a national attitude. An attitude that says that beeing a racist is okay. In the UK if you went into a pub (okay, if you went into a pub pre the London bombings) and started going off about black people or Pakistanis or whoever, a few people would agree with you, a lot of people would glare at you, a few people would start onat you about being a racist bastard and at least one guys probably gonna threaten you.
Oh, and pre the last elections there was a massive increase in the numbers of black people arrested in FLorida. Black people tend to vote Democrat, and the governer of FLorida is not only Republican, but the president's brother. Coincidence?
And no, I don't have a solution to fix it. I'm not a politician, I'm just an agressively opinionated smartarse bitch. But the fact remains that it could be fixed. Maybe you could put control of the welfare system and it's administration in the hands of the states themselves.
The death of any person in self defence, attack, assault, war, whatever, IS murder. Once you start calling it other things the whole mess just gets confused.
ANd why, WHY for crying out loud, is it SO IMPORTANT to have GUNS? I mean, WHY? If noone in the US had guns there'd be no problems with them! If they were harder to get hold of then fewer people would have them and there'd be LESS of a problem with them! WHAT IS THE BIG GODDAMN DEAL WITH GUNS? If you punch someone in the face in the US you'll get your ass sued but noone sees anything wrong with walking around carrying weapons that are designed to kill people. You can say defence as many times as you like, but that's what it's for. I beleive in the sanctity of human life - no-one has the right to take that away from someone.

I love how the gun grabbers make the arguments that the weapon is to blame. Just having a gun absolves the criminal of any blame. After all. the gun made him do it, right?

Yeah, I know. If you take the guns away then the attack would use a knife instead. But it's one hell of a lot easier to defend yourself from a knife.

Brush up on your reading. I never said any such thing; I merely said that guns are made to kill people so a gun that does not accomplish this purpose is nothing more than a worthless lump of metal.


Then here it is again:



I don't think your precious guns were designed for that, were they?

Yes they were actually.

Learn to pay attention, or to understand English properly. It is exactly what you said. And a gun, like a nuclear weapon, is designed to prevent violence, not provoke it. Your grasp of reality seems to be very weak if you can't understand something as simple as that.


Besides, I could care less what you think.

Rarely have I had the pleasure to be entertained by someone with such an appallingly muddled sense of logic. But since I don't like wasting time on numbskulls, I'll just be amused at your atrociously bad grammar, and leave it at that.

Yeah, I know. If you take the guns away then the attack would use a knife instead. But it's one hell of a lot easier to defend yourself from a knife.
Someone could easily kill anywhere from 3-6 people with a combat knife and it wouldn't even alert a crowd.

Besides, I could care less what you think.

If that's the position you are going to take then you are nothing but a troll and you shouldn't engage people in a debate.

Rarely have I had the pleasure to be entertained by someone with such an appallingly muddled sense of logic. But since I don't like wasting time on numbskulls, I'll just be amused at your atrociously bad grammar, and leave it at that.

LOL, TEHN IM GL4D I C0ULD AMMUZE U!11! LOL

If that's the position you are going to take then you are nothing but a troll and you shouldn't engage people in a debate.

Uh, I don't care what people think. But I still find it interesting to listen to what they have to say.

Okay, so I don't have the answers to everything. I'm suggesting that the polls may not be accurate. .

These aren't "polls". This is data gathered from dozens of agencies over years.
I'm suggesting that America wouldn't have such a race problem if people of different races mixed more and were encouraged to do so from an early age. Every country has racists, and they aren't all white either. WHat I'm bitchin about is a national attitude. An attitude that says that beeing a racist is okay. In the UK if you went into a pub (okay, if you went into a pub pre the London bombings) and started going off about black people or Pakistanis or whoever, a few people would agree with you, a lot of people would glare at you, a few people would start onat you about being a racist bastard and at least one guys probably gonna threaten you. .

The "not mixing" thing goes both ways. Try being causcasion and going into a predominantly AA or Hispanic neighborhood.


Oh, and pre the last elections there was a massive increase in the numbers of black people arrested in FLorida. Black people tend to vote Democrat, and the governer of FLorida is not only Republican, but the president's brother. Coincidence?

No, just political conspiracy theory. In the 2000 elections, certain factions were pushing to dismiss absentee ballots, which predominantly leans Republican. Coincidence?

And no, I don't have a solution to fix it. I'm not a politician, I'm just an agressively opinionated smartarse bitch. But the fact remains that it could be fixed. Maybe you could put control of the welfare system and it's administration in the hands of the states themselves.

Sure it could be fixed. I don't disagree w/ you there.
The death of any person in self defence, attack, assault, war, whatever, IS murder. Once you start calling it other things the whole mess just gets confused..

Well, I'm glad almost every legal system in the world disagree's w/ you.
ANd why, WHY for crying out loud, is it SO IMPORTANT to have GUNS? I mean, WHY? If noone in the US had guns there'd be no problems with them! If they were harder to get hold of then fewer people would have them and there'd be LESS of a problem with them! WHAT IS THE BIG GODDAMN DEAL WITH GUNS? If you punch someone in the face in the US you'll get your ass sued but noone sees anything wrong with walking around carrying weapons that are designed to kill people. You can say defence as many times as you like, but that's what it's for. I beleive in the sanctity of human life - no-one has the right to take that away from someone.

The only thing there would be "less of a problem with" are criminals having a tougher time committing crimes as nobody who actually followes the law would be armed and able to defend themselves.

Since you said "bitch", I'm going to assume you're female. If you were being or about to be raped and got hold of a firearm, would you use it? If you walked in on a family member being raped/murdered/attacked, would you use a firearm to shoot the person doing it?

ANd someone with a sniper rifle and a silencer could kill as many people as they wanted and no-one would even see, if they were good.

Yeah, I know. If you take the guns away then the attack would use a knife instead. But it's one hell of a lot easier to defend yourself from a knife.

Most violent crime is committed w/o a weapon. If you "take the guns away", the only people that WON'T have them are those that follow the law.

ANd someone with a sniper rifle and a silencer could kill as many people as they wanted and no-one would even see, if they were good.
Yet, it hasn't happend yet! So many opportunites within the last 30 years, yet it has never happend!

ANd someone with a sniper rifle and a silencer could kill as many people as they wanted and no-one would even see, if they were good.

So you feel things should be banned based on what someone "Could" do?

Silencers have been heavily regulated in the US since 1934.

Define "Sniper Rifle".

This is so much fun, you're hysterical!

If no law abiding person has a gun then you instantly know who the criminals are - coz they've got guns!! And the police are still armed, so what's the problem? Defending the public by whatever means necessary is their job, not the job of whoever happens to own a gun. Guns are designed for killing people at a distance, people who may not even see you - and you don't see anything wrong with that? Get more police if you have to.

As for the rapist thing, well if it takes a gun in your pocket to make you feel safe then surely a knife would do the job just as well. Teach people self defence, encourage them to use their own physical strength to defend themselves and others. And no, if I was attacked I would not use a firearm. But by the time the option came around I probably would've killed the guy just the same. I beleive in the sanctity of human life, but I also beleive in self defence and this agressiveness you're seeing here is not all verbal. Or, to put it another way, I'd rip his bollocks off.
In short, people who like guns excessively are cowards who don't feel safe enough without them. Get some guts!

This is so much fun, you're hysterical!

If no law abiding person has a gun then you instantly know who the criminals are - coz they've got guns!! And the police are still armed, so what's the problem? Defending the public by whatever means necessary is their job, not the job of whoever happens to own a gun. Guns are designed for killing people at a distance, people who may not even see you - and you don't see anything wrong with that? Get more police if you have to.

As for the rapist thing, well if it takes a gun in your pocket to make you feel safe then surely a knife would do the job just as well. Teach people self defence, encourage them to use their own physical strength to defend themselves and others. And no, if I was attacked I would not use a firearm. But by the time the option came around I probably would've killed the guy just the same. I beleive in the sanctity of human life, but I also beleive in self defence and this agressiveness you're seeing here is not all verbal. Or, to put it another way, I'd rip his bollocks off.
In short, people who like guns excessively are cowards who don't feel safe enough without them. Get some guts!
You live in a world of fair fights. In reality there is no such thing. A knife does little against multiple attackers and with all due respect, if you don't have enough courage to pull a trigger, there is no way you could stab another human being. Your ignorance in basic self-defense principles is clearly showing. :(

Didn't see you there...
I can't give a precise definition of 'sniper rifle', not being a gun expert. Just think James Bond.
And YES, things should be regulated on what they COULD do. Because it isn't the weapon that's the problem, it's the person behind it. But untill you sort them out it only seems sensible to try and take away their oppourtunities.

This is so much fun, you're hysterical!

If no law abiding person has a gun then you instantly know who the criminals are - coz they've got guns!! And the police are still armed, so what's the problem? Defending the public by whatever means necessary is their job, not the job of whoever happens to own a gun. Guns are designed for killing people at a distance, people who may not even see you - and you don't see anything wrong with that? Get more police if you have to.

You obviously know little about police reaction times or their obligation to protect individuals.

As for the rapist thing, well if it takes a gun in your pocket to make you feel safe then surely a knife would do the job just as well. Teach people self defence, encourage them to use their own physical strength to defend themselves and others. And no, if I was attacked I would not use a firearm. But by the time the option came around I probably would've killed the guy just the same. I beleive in the sanctity of human life, but I also beleive in self defence and this agressiveness you're seeing here is not all verbal. Or, to put it another way, I'd rip his bollocks off.
In short, people who like guns excessively are cowards who don't feel safe enough without them. Get some guts!

And now we go into the "You're not a real man.." insults.

So basically, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are just repeating the buzz phrases that you heard from some Hoplophobe.

Didn't see you there...
I can't give a precise definition of 'sniper rifle', not being a gun expert. Just think James Bond..

So you admit you really have no idea what you're talking about;
And YES, things should be regulated on what they COULD do. Because it isn't the weapon that's the problem, it's the person behind it. But untill you sort them out it only seems sensible to try and take away their oppourtunities.

So you'ld support regulation on computers that "could" be involved in hacking? Cars that "could" go faster than the speed limit? Speech that "could" be inflamatory?

You're right, it is the person behind it. Most crimes involving firearms are committed by people w/ prior history and have obtained them illegally already.
The only thing further "regulation" would do is limit those who actually follow the law.

It's a shame the world isn't a nicer place, but you've got to try making it that way sometime. A gun would be no more use against multiple attackers than a knife or any other weapon, and the inexperienced are far more likely to hurt themselves with one. Why don't you just pass a law saying anyone walking the streets alone at night has to take a Rottweiler with them? Just living includes a definite element of risk that no amount of weapons will protect you from. What if a car ran you over? What if a dog savagely attacked you on your way to work? What if terrorists blew you up (which seems more and more likely these days)? You take risks everyday, you may as well be just as scared of them as you are of the serial rapist/murderers, and a gun's not gonna help.

And, incidently, self defence training INCLUDES knowing how to deal with multiple attackers WITHOUT using a gun. Maybe you should get training.

In addition, drawing a bladed weapon without the intent to kill will often end up you having the weapon taken away from you and then used upon you. Even with a handgun you need training to engage multiple targets at short range. Think you can take on 2 people with intent to harm you while you are armed with a melee weapon and no intent to kill?

It's a shame the world isn't a nicer place, but you've got to try making it that way sometime. A gun would be no more use against multiple attackers than a knife or any other weapon, and the inexperienced are far more likely to hurt themselves with one. Why don't you just pass a law saying anyone walking the streets alone at night has to take a Rottweiler with them? Just living includes a definite element of risk that no amount of weapons will protect you from. What if a car ran you over? What if a dog savagely attacked you on your way to work? What if terrorists blew you up (which seems more and more likely these days)? You take risks everyday, you may as well be just as scared of them as you are of the serial rapist/murderers, and a gun's not gonna help.

And, incidently, self defence training INCLUDES knowing how to deal with multiple attackers WITHOUT using a gun. Maybe you should get training.
Most civilian self-defense training benefits you only if you attacker doesn't know what he's doing. My training is different, I automatically assume he knows what he's doing and I eliminate the need for hesitation or doubt and go in for the quick-kill. The quick-kill is the best kill.

I can engage mutiple hostiles with a sidearm, I think my record was 3 DADs (Drug/Armor Drills: 2 shots to chest, 1 to the head)in about 15-20 seconds. Most urban firefights don't last longer than 1-3 minutes.

It's a shame the world isn't a nicer place, but you've got to try making it that way sometime..

An armed society is a polite society.
A gun would be no more use against multiple attackers than a knife or any other weapon, and the inexperienced are far more likely to hurt themselves with one. .

Do you have some sort of proof of this?
Why don't you just pass a law saying anyone walking the streets alone at night has to take a Rottweiler with them? Just living includes a definite element of risk that no amount of weapons will protect you from. What if a car ran you over? What if a dog savagely attacked you on your way to work? What if terrorists blew you up (which seems more and more likely these days)? You take risks everyday, you may as well be just as scared of them as you are of the serial rapist/murderers, and a gun's not gonna help..

And now we go into the "living in fear" statements. It's almost like there's a script out there.

So you honestly think a firearm is useless in self-defence? I believe in being prepared for all sorts of possible emergencies. I keep a fire extinguisher, lock my doors, wear a seatbelt, and keep all my important papers in a safe. I must be one of the most paranoid, fearful individuals in the world.

And, incidently, self defence training INCLUDES knowing how to deal with multiple attackers WITHOUT using a gun. Maybe you should get training.

So that 95 lb woman is going to be able to fight off 2 or more 200lb rapists?

Massad Ayoob.

Inflammatory speech never killed anyone (shame).
And if it's harder to obtain guns legally then OBVIOUSLY it's harder to obtain them illegally, because imports etc would be monitored, so you've slready made it harder for the criminals. But if you want the best proof that banning guns reduces murder rates just take a look across the water.

London - 2.1 murders per 100,000 population

Edinburgh - 2.4

New York - 16.8

Washington D.C - 69.3

Taken from the BBC website @
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

And incidently, when I said I belevied in the sanctity of human life and self defence I don't think you got what I meant. People's brains don't, generally, work that way - if you're in a fight/flight situation you're not gonna be going 'oh I hope I don't hurt this guy'. You're unlikely to be thinking much of anything at all, and if an attacker got killed then - too bad. I'd much rather be attacked in a country where guns were illegal - less chance of actually getting shot. And, personally, I don't feel the need to carry weapons. Common sense, like staying out of the bad parts of town and not walking around in the dark, will do it nine times out of ten. The tenth time I punch somebody. Here's a tip - it takes time to aim, and you're quite right, get up the courage to fire a gun. It takes far less time to hit someone very hard. Learn self defence - it's much safer in the long and short term.

Inflammatory speech never killed anyone (shame).
And if it's harder to obtain guns legally then OBVIOUSLY it's harder to obtain them illegally, because imports etc would be monitored, so you've slready made it harder for the criminals. But if you want the best proof that banning guns reduces murder rates just take a look across the water.

London - 2.1 murders per 100,000 population

Edinburgh - 2.4

New York - 16.8

Washington D.C - 69.3

Taken from the BBC website @
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

You have no idea how difficult it is obtaining a firearm permit in New York City do you? Yet, we still have all this gun violence! :eek:

Inflammatory speech never killed anyone (shame).
And if it's harder to obtain guns legally then OBVIOUSLY it's harder to obtain them illegally, because imports etc would be monitored, so you've slready made it harder for the criminals. But if you want the best proof that banning guns reduces murder rates just take a look across the water.

London - 2.1 murders per 100,000 population

Edinburgh - 2.4

New York - 16.8

Washington D.C - 69.3

Taken from the BBC website @
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

And incidently, when I said I belevied in the sanctity of human life and self defence I don't think you got what I meant. People's brains don't, generally, work that way - if you're in a fight/flight situation you're not gonna be going 'oh I hope I don't hurt this guy'. You're unlikely to be thinking much of anything at all, and if an attacker got killed then - too bad. I'd much rather be attacked in a country where guns were illegal - less chance of actually getting shot. And, personally, I don't feel the need to carry weapons. Common sense, like staying out of the bad parts of town and not walking around in the dark, will do it nine times out of ten. The tenth time I punch somebody. Here's a tip - it takes time to aim, and you're quite right, get up the courage to fire a gun. It takes far less time to hit someone very hard. Learn self defence - it's much safer in the long and short term.

I guess that's why violent crime and murders in the UK have gone up since the final grab and Scotland has been ranked as the most violent industrialized country. What were the numbers before the laws? It's interesting to note that crime has DECREASED in the US w/ the relaxing of firearm laws and an increase in ownership.

Still care to claim causality?

BTW NY and Washington DC have very restrictive firearm laws.

I do know self-defense. I practice w/ my firearm at least once a month.

Skyfork - I am a civilian, and I don't walk around expecting to be attacked. Do you walk around armed all the time? If so, why? And you're right, quicker is better. But unconcious is just as good, in my eyes, as dead. WIth the added bonus that you don't face manslaughter charges afterwards. Maybe he was drunk, maybe he was on drugs, maybe he's just some jerkoff in a bad mood. Does he deserve to die? Do you deserve to make that choice?

Oh, and a 95lb woman being attacked by rapists who don't have guns might just be able to knee one and run for it. Or scream. Or maybe, just maybe, have enough common sense to not be wandering around alone. Or she might just draw her gun and, having been overpowered by the second guy, get shot.
As for being prepared for all possible emergencies, well, you must look an interesting sight walking the streets with a parachute, guard dog, walking stiuck, umberella, bomb detector and assorted weaponery. Personally I'd rather spend my time living my life, not worrying about it.

Inflammatory speech never killed anyone (shame).
And if it's harder to obtain guns legally then OBVIOUSLY it's harder to obtain them illegally, because imports etc would be monitored, so you've slready made it harder for the criminals. But if you want the best proof that banning guns reduces murder rates just take a look across the water.

London - 2.1 murders per 100,000 population

Edinburgh - 2.4

New York - 16.8

Washington D.C - 69.3

Taken from the BBC website @
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/153988.stm

Doesn't work like that, as places like New York have always had higher violence rates than london, even in their infancy. As well, in the 50's when guns were perfectly legal in New York City, it's crime rate was much lower. Only lately has the homogenity of London been disturbed, and oddly enough there has been a distinctly rising crime rate.

Oh, and a 95lb woman being attacked by rapists who don't have guns might just be able to knee one and run for it. Or scream. Or maybe, just maybe, have enough common sense to not be wandering around alone. Or she might just draw her gun and, having been overpowered by the second guy, get shot.
Note, you are much more likely to obtain help if you scream FIRE when being raped than just crying RAPE or screaming needlessly.

One of the first things you should learn when carrying a firearm is how to never put yourself in a position where you have to use it . Because if you have to use it chances are someone is going to die .
My question to all you self defense proponents is whats a better defense than never having to fight ? Why cant you use the methods I have used in my 25 years of carrying a concealed weapon ?

Skyfork - I am a civilian, and I don't walk around expecting to be attacked. Do you walk around armed all the time? If so, why? And you're right, quicker is better. But unconcious is just as good, in my eyes, as dead. WIth the added bonus that you don't face manslaughter charges afterwards. Maybe he was drunk, maybe he was on drugs, maybe he's just some jerkoff in a bad mood. Does he deserve to die? Do you deserve to make that choice? .
The majority of people who shoot in self-defense do not face any charges at all. If it comes down to me/ my family or some "jerkoff in a bad mood", it's going to be him. He "deserves" it in that he was trying to hurt/kill someone else and I do deserve to make that choice.

Oh, and a 95lb woman being attacked by rapists who don't have guns might just be able to knee one and run for it. Or scream. Or maybe, just maybe, have enough common sense to not be wandering around alone. Or she might just draw her gun and, having been overpowered by the second guy, get shot. .

Or she might pull out her handgun and scare them away, preventing a crime, which happens millions of times/year in the US, as compared to those unarmed, which INCREASES their chances of being hurt.

As for being prepared for all possible emergencies, well, you must look an interesting sight walking the streets with a parachute, guard dog, walking stiuck, umberella, bomb detector and assorted weaponery. Personally I'd rather spend my time living my life, not worrying about it.

Did I say "all possible emergencies"? No I did not. Straw men really aren't effective arguements.

BTW NY and Washington DC have very restrictive firearm laws.


That is an understatement. First, you need to get an application from your local police station or county courthouse and type in everything and mail it in. after some (undeterminable) time, you will get a response in the mail and have about 30 days to respond to the mail or you must apply again. Bear in mind that you must specify what type of permit you are applying (pistol, rifle or shotgun) and there are location types (business, home or CCW). You also need 2 moral character witnesses (I'm serious here) to vouch for you, then you need to arrange a meeting with a comitee (police) and you must be interviewed (if you miss this interview go back to start). During the interview they will ask you questions and try to fail you by asking misleading questions. At anytime they can fail you without giving you a reason. After the interview you need to get a money over for $349 and $99 for the permit. After that, you will be informed if you passed or not and will need to pickup the permit at a police station (it's always the same place). Failure to pick up your permit in 30 days results in failure and you must start over. At anytime NYC can revoke your permit and they do not need a reason.

Scotland was ranked as the most violent industrialized country compared to WHERE?

Okay, so maybe you need to deal with the people problem first, then the weapon problem. The problem is, life is cheap. You need to make it more expensive.
Anyway, as I said, I prefer to live my life rather than worry about it. Now I've upset you all I'm off to spread the joy. It's been fun :headbang:

[QUOTE=Kecibukia]I believe in being prepared for all sorts of possible emergencies.QUOTE]

Sorry about that. But you probably have too much stress in your life anyway.
Oaky, I'm going now.

Skyfork - I am a civilian, and I don't walk around expecting to be attacked. Do you walk around armed all the time? If so, why? And you're right, quicker is better. But unconcious is just as good, in my eyes, as dead. WIth the added bonus that you don't face manslaughter charges afterwards. Maybe he was drunk, maybe he was on drugs, maybe he's just some jerkoff in a bad mood. Does he deserve to die? Do you deserve to make that choice?

I'm fine. I don't live on the west coast anymore. But I still have my CCW. Why? I wasn't born in a carefree sometimes-violent society. I know how very quickly things can go to shit and it is a diservice to myself and frankly it's stupid to not acknowledge this. You call it fear? Carrying a weapon is like breathing to me.

Scotland was ranked as the most violent industrialized country compared to WHERE?:

Read the UN report.

Okay, so maybe you need to deal with the people problem first, then the weapon problem. The problem is, life is cheap. You need to make it more expensive.
Anyway, as I said, I prefer to live my life rather than worry about it. Now I've upset you all I'm off to spread the joy. It's been fun :headbang:

You're spreading something, that's for sure. Mostly it's only good for fertilizer though.

I live in Westover, Alabama, where all you have to do to get a gun is have a licence to own one, and the money to pay whoever is selling it to you. All you have to do to get that licence is prove that you're over fourteen years old and pass a drug test at the county police department. Yet we haven't had one instance where a human was killed with a gun in seven years*. Okay, so we only have about 1,500 people, but that's still pretty good, isn't it?
*Said dead person forgot he had a loaded pistol in his pocket. Sat on the trigger.

I live in Westover, Alabama, where all you have to do to get a gun is have a licence to own one, and the money to pay whoever is selling it to you. All you have to do to get that licence is prove that you're over fourteen years old and pass a drug test at the county police department. Yet we haven't had one instance where a human was killed with a gun in seven years*. Okay, so we only have about 1,500 people, but that's still pretty good, isn't it?
*Said dead person forgot he had a loaded pistol in his pocket. Sat on the trigger.

Ouch, that must have sucked.

My opinion on this whole issue is that I think that if a little kid finds your gun and plays with it, and then shoots him/herself, then its your damn fault. Why wasnt it locked up properly? Why wasnt the ammo seperate from the gun? And what the hell is that gun doing out in the open? Listen, to all those anti-gun nuts out there who use this excuse to ban guns, dont blaime the gun, blaime the idiot owner who was careless. Its like a driving a car. If you drive responsibly, obey the traffic laws, and dont go haveing road rage, you will be a safe driver. If you dont do any iof these things, you will hurt someone or kill them too. Same aplies to law abiding gun owner. If they are responsible, they will keep it locked up and away from the little kids.

oh by the way.
I am applying for a FOID card myself.
I am doing it legally, so Ican go and buy myself
a shotgun to go hunting with.

Every once I get a warm fuzzy feeling all over...

9/29/05 03:22am: Dept. Of Righteous Shootings (http://www.thenationofriflemen.com/nor/index.php/rant/index1/C6/)

Scumbag attacks his ex-wife in a Wal-Mart store, stabbing her several times.

A cranky, cantankerous old fart (72) (who happens to have his CCW) sees all this mayhem, pulls out his gun and puts three rounds into our Husband of the Year, whereupon Mack The Knife comes over all dead.

[pause to let the thunderous cheers and applause die down]

I suppose this is the “Wild West/vigilante killer” type of scenario which GFW (Gun Fearing Wussie) International was pissing and moaning about, right?

Right.

Note: If our lady victim had had to depend on the police to save her, she’d now be dead, instead of “critical but stable”. Let’s all hope she makes it—if only so she can thank the man who saved her life and rid the world of a foul scumbag.

Another passing thought: If Wal-Mart were one of those GFW stores which bans the carrying of guns in the establishment, she’d now be dead. Think about that, the next time you consider shopping in such a place. (I won’t set foot inside a place which doesn’t want me to carry inside their hallowed confines—screw ‘em.)

Verification:
http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=21356&cat=HOME

Every once I get a warm fuzzy feeling all over...

9/29/05 03:22am: Dept. Of Righteous Shootings (http://www.thenationofriflemen.com/nor/index.php/rant/index1/C6/)



Verification:
http://www.kobtv.com/index.cfm?viewer=storyviewer&id=21356&cat=HOME

Oh, but she should have
A)learned self defense
B) used common sense and not been in this neighborhood,
C)relied on the police

The obviously senile old man is a vigilante who is a threat to society because we all know that old people are incapable of using firearms and that guns cause crime.

Oh, but she should have
A)learned self defense
B) used common sense and not been in this neighborhood,
C)relied on the police

The obviously senile old man is a vigilante who is a threat to society because we all know that old people are incapable of using firearms and that guns cause crime.

actually she should have
A ). learned how to use a hand gun for defense .
B ) . used common sense and carry it so that she can get at it when she needs it .
C ) . Called the police to come pick up the criminals / husbands / boyfriends body after she was attacked .

Same aplies to law abiding gun owner. If they are responsible, they will keep it locked up and away from the little kids.

I have children, ages 5 to 12. They all know how the guns work, and know they are not toys. They know how to lock the bolt back and clear the chamber. They know how to drop the magazine.

During a recent demonstration by the local police at my daughter's school, she deftly took the Glock from the officer who had been holding it out for some of the childrens' inspection.

She dropped the mag and locked the slide back. Told him that he shouldn't hold loaded pistols out like that.

As for the guns in my house, they are in a magnetic quick release rack. Yes, it's locked, but everyone in the house knows how to open it. No, the only loaded guns are the ones that my wife and I always wear, except to bed.

In bed, we keep those on the bedside table.

I know, I know. Fact is, if someone who'd never heard of the US read the constitution they'd think it was some sort of beautiful liberal and democratic paradise.
Leave out the word "liberal" and it's damned close! :D

Both my son and my daughter were taught hand gun safety as soon as they were able to reach one . I never had any reason to fear the way they would react around weapons. But I still continue to store my weapons the safest way I can . I choose not to keep loaded weapons around but access to a speedloader or magizine is always easy for those who need to know .

Oh, but she should have
A)learned self defense
B) used common sense and not been in this neighborhood,
C)relied on the police

The obviously senile old man is a vigilante who is a threat to society because we all know that old people are incapable of using firearms and that guns cause crime.
Heh!

Um ... define "old," you twit! Grrrr! ;)

"(I won’t set foot inside a place which doesn’t want me to carry inside their hallowed confines—screw ‘em.)"

Do your banking online, do ya? :D

Heh!

Um ... define "old," you twit! Grrrr! ;)

Four letters for you A * A * R * P *
:)

During a recent demonstration by the local police at my daughter's school, she deftly took the Glock from the officer who had been holding it out for some of the childrens' inspection.

She dropped the mag and locked the slide back. Told him that he shouldn't hold loaded pistols out like that.
Bonus Dude! I hope you raised her allowance... or at least bought her a few hours at the Class III range :p

"(I won’t set foot inside a place which doesn’t want me to carry inside their hallowed confines—screw ‘em.)"

Do your banking online, do ya? :D
Actually, yes.

Of course, with CCW, "don't ask, don't tell" certainly comes into play in most circumstances...

I would rather be able to say, "gee, aren't you glad I didn't listen to your silly-ass rules" :D