NationStates Jolt Archive

In the process of buying a new AR-15, ammo, and right now my mom and dad are both buying Sig Sauer 226 pistols.

What is this "Global week of action against small arms?"

Is it actually global, or only happening in a few countries?

I'm celebrating by reaffirming my vote for people who are anti-gun. Which is most sensible people, which makes it easy.

I believe the original name was "Global awareness week for insecure men with small penises".


yeah the only gun i carry is safely between my legs.

guns are for pussies who cant fight.

I believe the original name was "Global awareness week for insecure men with small penises".

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with guns. But Opus Dei live across the street from me, and god help us if those nutters get guns.

What is this "Global week of action against small arms?"

Is it actually global, or only happening in a few countries?

www.IANSA.com

Supposedly it's global, however what IANSA says is taken with a grain of salt.

IANSA doesn't have much influence in the US, next to nil when compared to heavyweights such as the NRA and GOA.

And with Bolton in the UN...bwahahahaha :D

Hmm, Guess I ought to break out the toys and goto the range!

Killing random objects..

yeah the only gun i carry is safely between my legs.

guns are for pussies who cant fight.


Guns are because there are pussies who can't fight, and frankly I'd just as soon shoot 'em before they shoot me.

Though I don't actually own a gun.

Guns are because there are pussies who can't fight, and frankly I'd just as soon shoot 'em before they shoot me.

Though I don't actually own a gun.


me neither, and im not planning on it. i want a crossbow though

Buy large arms, I guess...

Oh and support the serial sniper. He was only exercizing his 2nd amendment.

me neither, and im not planning on it. i want a crossbow though
Crossbows are for wussies as well. Longbow, now THAT's for men! :p

Buy large arms, I guess...

Oh and support the serial sniper. He was only exercizing his 2nd amendment.

Nope, that right fell out of that the second he pulled the trigger on those people.

2nd ammendment =/= free ticket to kill.

Crossbows are for wussies as well. Longbow, now THAT's for men! :p

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on one of these!

Nope, that right fell out of that the second he pulled the trigger on those people.

2nd ammendment =/= free ticket to kill.

Those people were clearly infringing on his civil liberties.

Those people were clearly infringing on his civil liberties.
I say it wasn't his fault they walked into his crosshairs. They should've paid more attention...

Crossbows are for wussies as well. Longbow, now THAT's for men! :p


well i eventually want a long bow as well, more so than a crossbow now that i think about it, archery was a hobby of mine which i need to get back to.

been years though

Ah, I've been interested in starting for a couple of years now. Not easy around here, though.

Ah, I've been interested in starting for a couple of years now. Not easy around here, though.


archery is fun and very relaxing.

Guns are because there are pussies who can't fight, and frankly I'd just as soon shoot 'em before they shoot me.

Though I don't actually own a gun.

Gun control. Ther theory that a 130 pound 80 year old man should have to fist fight with a 20 year old attempted murderer.


Buy large arms, I guess...

Oh and support the serial sniper. He was only exercizing his 2nd amendment.

No, the 2nd amendment doesn't give a right to murder. In fact, nowhere in the constitution is murder justified....

Ah, I see there are still people who equate self-defense with murder and armed citizens with insanity.

I'm teaching a friends son about firearm safety and shooting.

www.IANSA.com

Supposedly it's global, however what IANSA says is taken with a grain of salt.

IANSA doesn't have much influence in the US, next to nil when compared to heavyweights such as the NRA and GOA.

And with Bolton in the UN...bwahahahaha :D

Please explain what appears to be the logical jump from "stopping arms trafficing that fuels intra-/international conflict" to "they're taking away all our guns." At the same time, I would like an explaination for the belief, common here in American society it seems, that "well-regulated" necessarily means "they're taking away all our guns."

I submit Confoederatio Helvetica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) as counter-evidence. It seems that firearms there are quite well-regulated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland . And yet, I understand that the society there is literally up to its eyeballs in firearms and general shooting culture (while violent crime rate there are very low, thereby destroying the "guns must mean more violent crime" fallacy).

I have no doubt that there are those involved in international arms control who equate "regulation" with "elimination," however, obviously, this need not necessarily be so. And I think this is a fact that all sides of the issue need to consider. I would submit that those who see "the right of the people" while ignoring "well-regulated" are just as wrong as those who see "well-regulated" while ignoring "the right of the people."

I say it wasn't his fault they walked into his crosshairs. They should've paid more attention...

HAHA! That would be a good one-liner. Care if I use that in gaming?

On a serious note, good luck trying tell that to the judge here.

I say it wasn't his fault they walked into his crosshairs. They should've paid more attention...
It's so much easier to argue against your imaginary straw men, isn't it?

Please explain what appears to be the logical jump from "stopping arms trafficing that fuels intra-/international conflict" to "they're taking away all our guns." At the same time, I would like an explaination for the belief, common here in American society it seems, that "well-regulated" necessarily means "they're taking away all our guns."



Well as to the first, when the head of IANSA openly states that people should only be allowed single shot firearms w/ a range of less than 200' after they prove to some unnamed gov't agency that they "need" it, says a lot towards their goals.

As to the second, if you actually look at the history of "regulation" in the US and how it is piece by piece leading towards "taking away all our guns" (ie chicago, DC, NJ, etc.) is all the explanation needed.

It's so much easier to argue against your imaginary straw men, isn't it?
Are you kidding? My imaginary straw men don't listen to any reason! They just scream at me :(

Please explain what appears to be the logical jump from "stopping arms trafficing that fuels intra-/international conflict" to "they're taking away all our guns." At the same time, I would like an explaination for the belief, common here in American society it seems, that "well-regulated" necessarily means "they're taking away all our guns."

I submit Confoederatio Helvetica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) as counter-evidence. It seems that firearms there are quite well-regulated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland . And yet, I understand that the society there is literally up to its eyeballs in firearms and general shooting culture (while violent crime rate there are very low, thereby destroying the "guns must mean more violent crime" fallacy).

While I have no doubt that there are those involved in international arms control who equate "regulation" with "elimination," however, obviously, this need not necessarily be so. And I think this is a fact that all sides of the issue need to consider. I would submit that those who see "the right of the people" while ignoring "well-regulated" are just as wrong as those who see "well-regulated" while ignoring "the right of the people."
The fact that they regulate guns makes it harder to purchase guns. On the issue of regulation we stand by our arguments on gun criminalization:
The people who plan to use guns to initiate violent force, are obviously not going to follow any sort of regulation regarding guns. Seriously, in the USA killing someone could get you capital punishment. That doesn't deter these criminals, but the risk of a few hundred dollars in fines will. The reason that we don't like gun regulation is that the only people who end up being regulated are the ones who plan to use guns for purely reasonable purposes.

HAHA! That would be a good one-liner. Care if I use that in gaming?

On a serious note, good luck trying tell that to the judge here.
Go ahead. And it's not me who have to tell it to the judge, so I can give whatever advice I want to murderers. Sounds like a good occupation, don't you think?

Please explain what appears to be the logical jump from "stopping arms trafficing that fuels intra-/international conflict" to "they're taking away all our guns." At the same time, I would like an explaination for the belief, common here in American society it seems, that "well-regulated" necessarily means "they're taking away all our guns."

I submit Confoederatio Helvetica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland) as counter-evidence. It seems that firearms there are quite well-regulated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland . And yet, I understand that the society there is literally up to its eyeballs in firearms and general shooting culture (while violent crime rate there are very low, thereby destroying the "guns must mean more violent crime" fallacy).

I have no doubt that there are those involved in international arms control who equate "regulation" with "elimination," however, obviously, this need not necessarily be so. And I think this is a fact that all sides of the issue need to consider. I would submit that those who see "the right of the people" while ignoring "well-regulated" are just as wrong as those who see "well-regulated" while ignoring "the right of the people."

Because IANSA would stop at nothing to disarm the US public, since we own I think 300 milllion weapons between 80 million gun owners. Someone needs to dig up the data on that...it's been a while.

Screw IANSA.

Are you kidding? My imaginary straw men don't listen to any reason! They just scream at me :(
Siged

Woo! My first sigging!

Go ahead. And it's not me who have to tell it to the judge, so I can give whatever advice I want to murderers. Sounds like a good occupation, don't you think?

Eh, we all have that. I usually tell em to get bent.

Because IANSA would stop at nothing to disarm the US public, since we own I think 300 milllion weapons between 80 million gun owners. Someone needs to dig up the data on that...it's been a while.

Screw IANSA.

More of less, look what happened to Australia.

So that's why the governments planned a knife amnesty. Crafty devils. I'm going to go out, buy a knife, happy slap someone and confess. Or just stay at home ad watch the news, another person stabbed, another million jobs lost, Gordon Brown becomes Prime Minister, Britain now a Dictatorship.

Because IANSA would stop at nothing to disarm the US public, since we own I think 300 milllion weapons between 80 million gun owners. Someone needs to dig up the data on that...it's been a while.

Screw IANSA.

The number is between 200 & 300 million weapons in the US.

Interestingly, according to IANSA, there are approx 640 million small arms world wide. 59% in civilian hands.

That means that between 35% and 50% of those civilian weapons are in the US. That means the majority of the rest are in the hands of governments and are the ones committing the majority of the atrocities that IANSA is opposed to. Yet they're going after civilian firearms.

The fact that they regulate guns makes it harder to purchase guns.
Actually, I don't think it's that hard. Now, after the shootings at the zug, getting a CCW permit has become much harder, but buying a gun hasn't. This is, of course, rank stupidity as it was inside a gun free zone. Had it not been, probability dictates that someone would have had a gun, in which case the shooter would have been cut down before he could kill that many people. The guns to my knowledge generally aren't individually registered, instead I'm pretty sure you get a license that is valid for a certain period of time in which you can buy guns. The official militia weapons are tightly regulated because they are assault rifles and they are subsidised by the government.

The number is between 200 & 300 million weapons in the US.

Interestingly, according to IANSA, there are approx 640 million small arms world wide. 59% in civilian hands.

That means that between 35% and 50% of those civilian weapons are in the US. That means the majority of the rest are in the hands of governments and are the ones committing the majority of the atrocities that IANSA is opposed to. Yet they're going after civilian firearms.

We own half of the worlds small arms? That's awesome. Governments in the 20th century were responsible for 180 million civilian deaths, IIRC.

The number of small arms here in the US increases by a fair bit everyday. There are a LARGE number of AR15 billet makers in the US, making receivers for 30 or so different companies. Ak receiver companies? Phssaw, it takes me longer to write this post than it does to make an AK receiver. Stamped sheet metal, that's all it is.

Actually, I don't think it's that hard. Now, after the shootings at the zug, getting a CCW permit has become much harder, but buying a gun hasn't. This is, of course, rank stupidity as it was inside a gun free zone. Had it not been, probability dictates that someone would have had a gun, in which case the shooter would have been cut down before he could kill that many people. The guns to my knowledge generally aren't individually registered, instead I'm pretty sure you get a license that is valid for a certain period of time in which you can buy guns. The official militia weapons are tightly regulated because they are assault rifles and they are subsidised by the government.
In some states it's not too difficult to get a gun. That's how it should be in all states.

I thought the bold part was rather interesting. It raises the question:
What sort of weapons do individuals have the right to own? I think most people would agree that the right to bare arms does not include WMDs. I'll start a thread on this matter.

While I dont know what this INSA or whatever thing is, the week against small arms is not for control of your American guns in civilian arms, but to prevent the sale of small arms to brutal and repressive governments/groups in generally 3rd world countries. They are wanting to control the international arms trade (not even stop it entirely, just regulate it so the wrong people dont get them), not your ego boosters. The week has dick squat to do with your weapons.

Now, people that support it may be in favour in gun control, but this campaign has nothing to do with that.

While I dont know what this INSA or whatever thing is, the week against small arms is not for control of your American guns in civilian arms, but to prevent the sale of small arms to brutal and repressive governments/groups in generally 3rd world countries. They are wanting to control the international arms trade (not even stop it entirely, just regulate it so the wrong people dont get them), not your ego boosters. The week has dick squat to do with your weapons.

Now, people that support it may be in favour in gun control, but this campaign has nothing to do with that.

Then you really need to read up on IANSA, who is leading this "campaign" and the statements by its leaders and supporters.

I'm celebrating by reaffirming my vote for people who are anti-gun. Which is most sensible people, which makes it easy.
I bought up to the limit on the number of rounds I can store in my house (10,000 of each caliber), and purchased two more firearms. But I do that all the time.

And I go to the range once a week. But I do that every week.

well first I am going to increase the weight and the ammount of reps when I do my curls.

But as soon as the adreneline shake stops I intend to head out to the rifle range to sight in my Enfield then my son and I will head out for some pistol practice . we should be gone all day I have about two ammo cans of surplus .303 left and at least 800 rounds of .38 /.357 and 500 rounds of .45 ..and I know we saved some slugs..( 3' magnum 12 gage sabot kills your damm shoulder )...so we should have a fine days worth of target shooting.

Gun control. Ther theory that a 130 pound 80 year old man should have to fist fight with a 20 year old attempted murderer.

Yeah, everyone knows that it's impossible to avoid getting shot when someone has a gun a foot away from you. After all, you can't just pull it out of their hand, or strike them in the elbow, or do anything like that. And we all know criminals will never carry arms when guns are completely uncontrolled.

Please. Don't use arguments that fall apart with the slightest touch. It annoys me, and I don't even give a fuck about this issue.

Yeah, everyone knows that it's impossible to avoid getting shot when someone has a gun a foot away from you. After all, you can't just pull it out of their hand, or strike them in the elbow, or do anything like that. And we all know criminals will never carry arms when guns are completely uncontrolled.

Please. Don't use arguments that fall apart with the slightest touch. It annoys me, and I don't even give a fuck about this issue.


I suspect you have been watching too many movies ....:D

Gun control. Ther theory that a 130 pound 80 year old man should have to fist fight with a 20 year old attempted murderer.

Lax gun laws : A sign that society is in such a crap state that people need to carry lethal devices with them to protect themselves wherever they go.

Lax gun laws : A sign that society is in such a crap state that people need to carry lethal devices with them to protect themselves wherever they go.

I assume the cops are there for you when a mugger is holding you at knifepoint?

I suspect you have been watching too many movies ....:D
I haven't watched a movie in months. I'm just aware that guns are not a weapon to be used at point blank range, when all it takes is a short push to prevent yourself from being shot. And when an 80 year old man confronts a 20 year old youth, one of them is going to be able to react much faster than the other, and it ain't the guy with wrinkles.

I haven't watched a movie in months. I'm just aware that guns are not a weapon to be used at point blank range, when all it takes is a short push to prevent yourself from being shot. And when an 80 year old man confronts a 20 year old youth, one of them is going to be able to react much faster than the other, and it ain't the guy with wrinkles.

And I could cite dozens of accounts where the opposite happened.

I'd like to see all the money spent on guns by private individuals in the last year spent on more and better law enforcement. Wonder if you'd feel safer then?

I'd like to see all the money spent on guns by private individuals in the last year spent on more and better law enforcement. Wonder if you'd feel safer then?

So you're saying that those who have taken responsibility for their own safety should now be taxed more to support law enforcement for everyone else who doesn't? This plus the fact that the police have no obligation to protect them?

I assume the cops are there for you when a mugger is holding you at knifepoint?
No, but then getting mugged isn't a common occurance here. That's possibly because there is a degree of social welfare which stops people getting so desperate that they feel the need to hold people at knifepoint to afford, say, food.

No, but then getting mugged isn't a common occurance here. That's possibly because there is a degree of social welfare which stops people getting so desperate that they feel the need to hold people at knifepoint to afford, say, food.

Actually, violent crime there is now higher than the US and is rising while the US's has been dropping.

So you're saying that those who have taken responsibility for their own safety should now be taxed more to support law enforcement for everyone else who doesn't? This plus the fact that the police have no obligation to protect them?

No I'm saying that it would be interesting to know how much is spent on guns by private individuals and how this money would affect law enforcement budgets.And as far as am aware, the olice have the duty to "protect and serve" ALL members of society.

No I'm saying that it would be interesting to know how much is spent on guns by private individuals and how this money would affect law enforcement budgets.And as far as am aware, the olice have the duty to "protect and serve" ALL members of society.

Actually they don't:

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/20938prs20050627.html

Actually they don't:

http://www.aclu.org/scotus/2004/20938prs20050627.html

Sorry, try reading the article. Yes they are saying the police should have done something in this case, the problem is they are saying it's not their job to make sure the police do, its the job of the state legislatures.

Then you really need to read up on IANSA, who is leading this "campaign" and the statements by its leaders and supporters.

I am not saying the IANSA are not pro-gun control, as I dont even know what they are, but this anti-small arms trade thing is also here in Britain (with groups such as Oxfam), and if you look at the literature for it, it has nothing to do with American private gun control. It is about stopping the access of the international arms trade by repressive governments and groups.

Sorry, try reading the article. Yes they are saying the police should have done something in this case, the problem is they are saying it's not their job to make sure the police do, its the job of the state legislatures.

Now try reading the court decision:

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

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-278

Also:
This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

I am not saying the IANSA are not pro-gun control, as I dont even know what they are, but this anti-small arms trade thing is also here in Britain (with groups such as Oxfam), and if you look at the literature for it, it has nothing to do with American private gun control. It is about stopping the access of the international arms trade by repressive governments and groups.

Really?

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/press/releases/controlarms.htm

To address these concerns, Amnesty International, Oxfam and the International Action Network on Small Arms (IANSA) have jointly launched the global Control Arms campaign. The campaign will focus on promoting an international treaty covering arms transfers – the Arms Trade Treaty – as well as a number of regional and locally appropriate measures designed to limit arms proliferation and misuse.

Alongside the call for an Arms Trade Treaty, the Control Arms campaign is also calling for:

*

Governments to develop and strengthen regional arms-control.
*

Governments to rigorously control national arms exports, brokers and dealers, and do more to prevent law enforcers misusing their weapons and to protect citizens from armed violence.
*

Local authorities and community leaders to help improve safety at a community level by developing projects to reduce the local availability and demand for arms.

Now try reading the court decision:

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

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=04-278

Also:
This uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen.

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

So your basically saying that every state could disband their policing systems and be totally legal? But hold on, thats OK because you have a right to bear arms to protect yourself. Assuming you can afford a gun. And the ammo.

Get real. So there is a technicality ion the law saying that you are not "entitled" to police protection. Come on, if you called the cops and told them there was a guy outside your house waving a machete round and threatening pople do you really think they're going to turn round and say "sorry, we're not coming and you can't make us."

So your basically saying that every state could disband their policing systems and be totally legal? But hold on, thats OK because you have a right to bear arms to protect yourself. Assuming you can afford a gun. And the ammo.

Get real. So there is a technicality ion the law saying that you are not "entitled" to police protection. Come on, if you called the cops and told them there was a guy outside your house waving a machete round and threatening pople do you really think they're going to turn round and say "sorry, we're not coming and you can't make us."

And if they do, you can't do anything about it. A restraining order is useless. If they don't consider it a valid threat, you can't do anything about it. If they decide to not show up for an hour or two, you can't do anything about it.

While they ussually will, they have no obligation to do anything about it.

Now if you'ld drop the red herrings, I never said anything about disbanding the police (even though it would be "legal"). People have the right to protect themselves.

And if they do, you can't do anything about it. A restraining order is useless. If they don't consider it a valid threat, you can't do anything about it. If they decide to not show up for an hour or two, you can't do anything about it.

While they ussually will, they have no obligation to do anything about it.

Now if you'ld drop the red herrings, I never said anything about disbanding the police (even though it would be "legal"). People have the right to protect themselves.

Yes peo;le have the right to protect themselves. When will you guys ubderstand? IFTHERE WERE NO GUNS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROTECT YOURSELVES AGAIBST GUNS. With only a very few illegal guns the ppolice would have a much easier job protecting society against firearms. thats the way it works here in the UK. Its not perfect but it seems to work a hell of a lot better than the system you have in the US.

Yes peo;le have the right to protect themselves. When will you guys ubderstand? IFTHERE WERE NO GUNS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROTECT YOURSELVES AGAIBST GUNS. With only a very few illegal guns the ppolice would have a much easier job protecting society against firearms. thats the way it works here in the UK. Its not perfect but it seems to work a hell of a lot better than the system you have in the US.

And yet you'ld still have to protect yourself against criminals. The majority of violent crime is NOT committed w/ a firearm either in the UK or the US.

As for the different systems, they are different and the level of firearm ownership doesn't play a part in it. There are areas in the US w/ MANDATORY firearm ownership and lower crime levels than the UK.

IFTHERE WERE NO GUNS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROTECT YOURSELVES AGAIBST GUNS.


because firearms are the only possible means for committing crime... :eek:

Yes peo;le have the right to protect themselves. When will you guys ubderstand? IFTHERE WERE NO GUNS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PROTECT YOURSELVES AGAIBST GUNS. With only a very few illegal guns the ppolice would have a much easier job protecting society against firearms. thats the way it works here in the UK. Its not perfect but it seems to work a hell of a lot better than the system you have in the US.
Technically if there were no guns there would be no illegal guns. Perhaps you meant if private citizens were not allowed to own guns?

There are areas in the US w/ MANDATORY firearm ownership and lower crime levels than the UK.

:confused:

Name one.

because firearms are the only possible means for committing crime... :eek:
And firearms are the only possible means for defending agains crime!:eek:

:confused:

Name one.

Kennesaw, Ga

because firearms are the only possible means for committing crime... :eek:

I didn't say there was no need to protect yourself against crime, i said there would be no need to protect yourslef against guns.

And firearms are the only possible means for defending agains crime!:eek:

But they are one of the most effective.

As to the second, if you actually look at the history of "regulation" in the US and how it is piece by piece leading towards "taking away all our guns" (ie chicago, DC, NJ, etc.) is all the explanation needed.


So the solution then is to run to the equal and opposite extreme?

I didn't say there was no need to protect yourself against crime, i said there would be no need to protect yourslef against guns.

Yep, because we all know no illegal guns exist in the UK! :rolleyes:

And yet you'ld still have to protect yourself against criminals. The majority of violent crime is NOT committed w/ a firearm either in the UK or the US.

As for the different systems, they are different and the level of firearm ownership doesn't play a part in it. There are areas in the US w/ MANDATORY firearm ownership and lower crime levels than the UK.

What your working on is a basis of fear. The argument seems to run "I need a gun because I fear something might happen to me or my family". I am glad that I don't live in a society ruled by fear.

So the solution then is to run to the equal and opposite extreme?

Did I say that? Did I anywhere claim that there should be 'no' regulation whatsoever?

Yep, because we all know no illegal guns exist in the UK! :rolleyes:

Like I said the system isn't perfect, no system ever will be. But it is a simple equation.

Less gun ownership = less gun killings

What your working on is a basis of fear. The argument seems to run "I need a gun because I fear something might happen to me or my family". I am glad that I don't live in a society ruled by fear.

Do you lock your car doors? Own a fire extinguisher? Check the water temperature before getting in? Make sure your kids don't have things they can choke on? Look both ways before crossing the street?

Do you lock your car doors? Own a fire extinguisher? Check the water temperature before getting in? Make sure your kids don't have things they can choke on? Look both ways before crossing the street?

Yes I do. What i don't do is ensure I have the ability to kill someone who tries to mug me.

But they are one of the most effective.
Just as they are one of the most effective ways of committing crimes.

Like I said the system isn't perfect, no system ever will be. But it is a simple equation.

Less gun ownership = less gun killings

There is very little "legal" ownership in many countries that have significant gun killings and murders as a whole. There is no absolute correlation.

It's interesting to note that "gun killings" have actually increased in the UK while the US's has decreased even w/ an increase in ownership.

Like I said the system isn't perfect, no system ever will be. But it is a simple equation.

Less gun ownership = less gun killings
Aye. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mor_ass_by_han_dis)

Yes I do.

So you're living in "fear" that something might happen to your family. I take steps to protect them further.

Yep, because we all know no illegal guns exist in the UK! :rolleyes:
See where it says would? IF there was no guns then there would be no need to defend yourself from guns.

Just as they are one of the most effective ways of committing crimes.

Only in your opinion. Once again, the majority of violent crimes do not involve firearms.

Aye. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mor_ass_by_han_dis)

Thankyou. The stats speak for themselves. There is no denying this fact.

Do you lock your car doors? Own a fire extinguisher? Check the water temperature before getting in? Make sure your kids don't have things they can choke on? Look both ways before crossing the street?
Owning a gun isn't going to prevent crime. It's just going to let you kill the criminal.

Only in your opinion. Once again, the majority of violent crimes do not involve firearms.
The stupidity of criminals does not invalidate my point, but yes it is my only opinion.

So you're living in "fear" that something might happen to your family. I take steps to protect them further.

Like i said, if I walk through a dodgy area at night I take precautions. I walk in the streetlights, I make sure someone knows where I am, I might even just not bother. I don't make sure I have the ability to kill. The ability to kill is not a deterrent. If someone wants your wallet that badly tey'll take it, whether your tooled up or not.

Aye. (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/mor_ass_by_han_dis)


And that proves nothing:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

Of course you ignore all the Defensive firearm uses in the US/year. (over 1 million)

Owning a gun isn't going to prevent crime. It's just going to let you kill the criminal.

False, it gives you the ABILITY to kill the criminal. The majority of defensive uses do not involve even discharging the firearm.

And that proves nothing:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_percap
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_percap

Of course you ignore all the Defensive firearm uses in the US/year. (over 1 million)

Take out all the countries with few / corrupt / ineffecient law enforcement and the US still comes near the top. You can't deny the facts.

Thankyou. The stats speak for themselves. There is no denying this fact.

Fact: There are several countries w/ higher ownership levels than the US and lower crime/murder.

Fact: There are several countries w/ lower ownership levels than the US and Higher crime/murder.

Fact: There are several countries w/ lower ownerhsip levels w/ lower crime/murder.

The real facts present a different story.

False, it gives you the ABILITY to kill the criminal. The majority of defensive uses do not involve even discharging the firearm.
That's what I said. A gun letting you kill someone means the same thing as a gun giving you the ability to kill someone.

How many defensive uses are there for a gun that don't involve firing it? Pointing it at someone and threatening to shoot them, throwing it at them and hitting them with it are all I can think of.

False, it gives you the ABILITY to kill the criminal. The majority of defensive uses do not involve even discharging the firearm.

You really want to have the ability to kill another person?

Fact: There are several countries w/ higher ownership levels than the US and lower crime/murder.

Fact: There are several countries w/ lower ownership levels than the US and Higher crime/murder.

Fact: There are several countries w/ lower ownerhsip levels w/ lower crime/murder.

The real facts present a different story.

Yes the real facts. See my previous post.

Better it be you dead ?

Yes I do. What i don't do is ensure I have the ability to kill someone who tries to mug me.

Like i said, if I walk through a dodgy area at night I take precautions. I walk in the streetlights, I make sure someone knows where I am, I might even just not bother. I don't make sure I have the ability to kill. The ability to kill is not a deterrent. If someone wants your wallet that badly tey'll take it, whether your tooled up or not.

Then how is it that over a million crimes / year are prevented in the US? What about someone invading your home? You might take the risk that they "only" want your VCR, I won't.

You really want to have the ability to kill another person?
Well you have that ability whether you have a gun or not, to be fair.

Then how is it that over a million crimes / year are prevented in the US? What about someone invading your home? You might take the risk that they "only" want your VCR, I won't.
You don't need a gun to protect yourself in the case of home invasion.

Better it be you dead ?

An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth eh? I'd rather take my (very insignificant) chances and not have a death on my conciense.

Well you have that ability whether you have a gun or not, to be fair.

True you can kill someone with a knife or even a rolled up newspaper. I can't prepare my dinner with a gun or read it. Guns were designed with one purpose. To kill. That is their function.

Yes the real facts. See my previous post.

Your "facts" are very limited.

Explain Switzerland, Finland, and Canada w/ Higher ownership level of the US.

Explain why the people in the "less efficient" countries that have higher crime should be left to relying on thier "less efficient" police?

Why should the 99.9% of people who legally use/own their firearms be punished for the actions of a few?

You don't need a gun to protect yourself in the case of home invasion.

In your opinion.

Like i said, if I walk through a dodgy area at night I take precautions. I walk in the streetlights, I make sure someone knows where I am, I might even just not bother. I don't make sure I have the ability to kill. The ability to kill is not a deterrent. If someone wants your wallet that badly tey'll take it, whether your tooled up or not.

And how is he going to take my wallet with a bullet in his head?
The ability to kill IS a deterrent, because criminals are cowards. Abd if they are dead they can no longer do anything.

The fact that they regulate guns makes it harder to purchase guns.


Which is why the society I pointed out as an example is known for being up to its ears in firearms of all sorts. Because regulation necessarily makes it more difficult to acquire firearms...

The reason that we don't like gun regulation is that the only people who end up being regulated are the ones who plan to use guns for purely reasonable purposes.

I would have thought that being tossed into prison or having a needle placed in one's arm counted as "regulation," but, at any rate, I brought up Switzerland as an example because that state has something that the United States and other countries do not: a political and social culture centered around the responsible ownership and use of firearms. This is the reason why regulation there works so well: the people and society are already in tune with such requirements; it is how an individual would conduct his own personal behavior anyway. I would be much more comfortable taking the extreme NRA type position on the issue of firearms if such an incredibly self-controled and responsible society existed here in the United States. But, like I said, it does not. I wonder if the abandonment of the militia in favor of the "professional" military was a major factor in the movement of American society to such a degenerate state. Notice how Switzerland has a very high level of firearms per capita, very low occurance of violent crime, and a compulsory hybrid-militia type military service. Interesting question...

The more important question, however, is this: how does one create a responsible society? One can take the option, presented in one of the NationStates issues regarding military training, where we just eliminate training and drop recruits into battle and whoever survives the ensuing bloodbath is declared a competent solider. In reality, however, that probably isn't a good idea. Eliminating any sort of regulation and relying on people to workout responsibility for a tool with the power to destroy life seems similarly dangerous.

Believe me, I am convinced that widespread firearms ownership can be made to work in conjunction with peaceful civil society. What do we do then to make it happen?

Which is why the society I pointed out as an example is known for being up to its ears in firearms of all sorts. Because regulation necessarily makes it more difficult to acquire firearms...



I would have thought that being tossed into prison or having a needle placed in ones arm counted as "regulation," but, at any rate, I brought up Switzerland as an example because that state has something that the United States and other countries does not: a political and social culture centered around the responsible ownership and use of firearms. This is the reason why regulation there works so well: the people and society are already in tune with such requirements; it is how an individual would conduct his own personal behavior anyway. I would be much more comfortable taking the extreme NRA type position on the issue of firearms if such an incredibly self-controled and responsible society existed here in the United States. But, like I said, it does not. I wonder if the abandonment of the militia in favor of the "professional" military was a major factor in the movement of American society to such a degenerate state. Notice how Switzerland has a very high level of firearms per capita, very low occurance of violent crime, and a compulsory hybrid-militia type military service. Interesting question...

The more important question, however, is this: how does one create a responsible society? One can take the option, presented in one of the NationStates issues regarding military training, where we just eliminate training and drop recruits into battle and whoever survives the ensuing bloodbath is declared a competent solider. In reality, however, that probably isn't a good idea. Eliminating any sort of regulation and relying on people to workout responsibility for a tool with the power to destroy life seems similarly dangerous.

Believe me, I am convinced that widespread firearms ownership can be made to work in conjunction with peaceful civil society. What do we do then to make it happen?

A very interesting point. But like you say, i don't think there are many societys in the world who are socially responsible enough as a whole to "handle" mass gun ownership. That includes American and British society.

You really want to have the ability to kill another person?

Let's rephrase this, Do I want the ability to meet fire with fire. Then yes.


If someone has a gun/knife and is threatening me with death, I will do what I can to take em out. And yes, I can live with that.

Believe me, I am convinced that widespread firearms ownership can be made to work in conjunction with peaceful civil society. What do we do then to make it happen?

Now this is a question I like. Do I have an absolute answer for it? No.

Some steps:

Regular safety/ use training for minors (not "guns are eeeevvviiiiilll)
Start enforcing the laws that are on the books and toughen penalties against abusers.
Stop demonizing the industry/hobby
Encourage youth sporting events

Let's rephrase this, Do I want the ability to meet fire with fire. Then yes.


If someone has a gun/knife and is threatening me with death, I will do what I can to take em out. And yes, I can live with that.

Do what you can. Doesn't mean you have to blow their head off does it?

Explain Switzerland, Finland, and Canada w/ Higher ownership level of the US.


and higher levels of legal regulation regarding such ownership...:eek:

Do what you can. Doesn't mean you have to blow their head off does it?

If they're threatening me or my family, it does.

Now this is a question I like. Do I have an absolute answer for it? No.

Some steps:

Regular safety/ use training for minors (not "guns are eeeevvviiiiilll)
Start enforcing the laws that are on the books and toughen penalties against abusers.
Stop demonizing the industry/hobby
Encourage youth sporting events

Heres something we can agree on. Not sure about minors though, you'd need a hell of a lot of supervision there.

Guns are because there are pussies who can't fight, and frankly I'd just as soon shoot 'em before they shoot me.

Though I don't actually own a gun.
Amen to that. I am pro gun ownership. "God made all Men, Samuel Colt made them equal."

Let's rephrase this, Do I want the ability to meet fire with fire. Then yes.


If someone has a gun/knife and is threatening me with death, I will do what I can to take em out. And yes, I can live with that.
Unless you carry a loaded gun with you at all times(something which is most likely not legal) then you can't really say you have the ability to meet fire with fire.

If they're threatening me or my family, it does.

Kill or be killed? Back to the jungle? We're supposed to be civilised you know.

and higher levels of legal regulation regarding such ownership...:eek:

Not necessarily regulation. You can own a silencer in Finland. You can't in the US.

The majority of gun crime in the US is NOT committed by those who legally own them. It is also committed by people who CAN'T legally own them.

Shock, criminals breaking the law.

No, but then getting mugged isn't a common occurance here. That's possibly because there is a degree of social welfare which stops people getting so desperate that they feel the need to hold people at knifepoint to afford, say, food.

The only criminals I have known were not out for food. They just didn't want to work for their money, and thought that taking someone else's was easier.

They were desperate to avoid having to get regular jobs.

I took one of them to a real job, and within minutes, he had stolen something and been put out of the building.

Weeks later, he was arrested after robbing people at gunpoint. He had access to food, clothing and housing, but to him, robbing was easier.

Another robber I knew was arrested after the elderly gentleman he tried to rob turned out to be skilled at kung fu and kicked his ass. Of course, the robber in that case was not armed with anything more than his fists.

Heres something we can agree on. Not sure about minors though, you'd need a hell of a lot of supervision there.

Addition: encourage parental responsibility.

It's what they do in Switzerland. There are Gov't sponsored youth shooting events.

Shock, criminals breaking the law.

Shock, if there won't so many legal guns laying around, the crims wouldn't find it so easy to get hold of them.

Kill or be killed? Back to the jungle? We're supposed to be civilised you know.

So defending yourself isn't "civilised"? You remember that when a member of your family is being raped.

Kill or be killed? Back to the jungle? We're supposed to be civilised you know.

So what would you do if someone broke into your house?
Would you stand there telling them how civilised you are while they rape and murder your family?

Do what you can. Doesn't mean you have to blow their head off does it?

Nope, it does not. If they do the rational thing, drop everything and run, then I walk over to the phone and call the cops. If they charge, well that is that.

In reality we have only had one person in my city has had to use thier concealed pistol. Long story short, it was three teens who stole a car and was robbing the guy at gunpoint, they got the guy on his hands and knees when he pulled and shot the one holding the gun. They found the three when they tried to check the teen who was shot into the local hospital.

Shock, if there won't so many legal guns laying around, the crims wouldn't find it so easy to get hold of them.

So crime is the fault of those who follow the law?

So what would you do if someone broke into your house?
Would you stand there telling them how civilised you are while they rape and murder your family?

No I'd hit them. i wouldn't intentionally try to kill them.

Shock, if there won't so many legal guns laying around, the crims wouldn't find it so easy to get hold of them.

There are no legal drugs laying around and the crims have no trouble finding them.

So defending yourself isn't "civilised"? You remember that when a member of your family is being raped.
There is no sense in not allowing gun ownership. I hate this idea that it is okay for a normal woman (who doesn't know a form of self-defence) to walk in an dark alley all alone, without the ability to defend herself somehow. Women (and men) should feel safe to move around as they please. Not live in perpetual fear of being attacked by gangs.

Unless you carry a loaded gun with you at all times(something which is most likely not legal) then you can't really say you have the ability to meet fire with fire.

And 48 states in the US have some form of CCW and crime has kept dropping. By your arguement, it should be increasing exponentially.

So crime is the fault of those who follow the law?

Please don't twist my words. Crime is the fault of the criminal. By not having guns we make it harder for the criminal to commit a gun crime.

Not necessarily regulation. You can own a silencer in Finland. You can't in the US.


Of course. Specifics will vary. In general, however, me thinks my point holds.


The majority of gun crime in the US is NOT committed by those who legally own them. It is also committed by people who CAN'T legally own them.


Most motor vehicle drivers can conduct themselves in a reasonably safe manner, yet they must still be licensed and they must still obey the rules and laws established for the safe use of a motor vehcile: stopping at red lights, staying on that side of the road, not operating vehicles that are outside one's license qualifications, etc.

Yes, most people don't commit crimes. And we have laws and punishments to make sure they stay that way. :)

There are no legal drugs laying around and the crims have no trouble finding them.

Thats because drugs are a hell of a lot easier to produce yourself than firearms are.

No I'd hit them. i wouldn't intentionally try to kill them.

So you think getting close to a violent criminal is a good idea?

Shock, if there won't so many legal guns laying around, the crims wouldn't find it so easy to get hold of them.

Terrible, terrible logic. So, because criminals steal legal guns and use them in crimes, lets take the guns away from law abiding gun owners. C'mon man, this is illogical. By this logic we should ban airliners because they can be stolen by criminals and used a cruise missles.

Of course. Specifics will vary. In general, however, me thinks my point holds.



Most motor vehicle drivers can conduct themselves in a reasonably safe manner, yet they must still be licensed and they must still obey the rules and laws established for the safe use of a motor vehcile: stopping at red lights, staying on that side of the road, not operating vehicles that are outside one's license qualifications, etc.

Yes, most people don't commit crimes. And we have laws and punishments to make sure they stay that way. :)

Actually, the car points only apply when used on a public road, not on private land.

Please don't twist my words. Crime is the fault of the criminal. By not having guns we make it harder for the criminal to commit a gun crime.

Why the special focus on "gun crime?" Doesn't this focus make it more difficult for those law abiding citizens to utilize a tool against those who would commit crimes against the community?

Thats because drugs are a hell of a lot easier to produce yourself than firearms are.

And yet they're still being produced even though it's illegal.

Actually, the car points only apply when used on a public road, not on private land.

Are you satisified with being allowed to carry/use your firearms only on private property? Never in public?

(I'm guessing no)

(edit: and besides that, unsafe use can make use on private property become a public issue very quickly and very easily when that unsafe use involves someone else's property.)

So you think getting close to a violent criminal is a good idea?

If confronted with a violent criminal I, like most people, would try in some way to put them down. I repeat, i would take the risk of murdering someone with a firearm.

Please don't twist my words. Crime is the fault of the criminal. By not having guns we make it harder for the criminal to commit a gun crime.


But what about the rest of the crimes? What about it being easier to defend yourself against a crime?

If confronted with a violent criminal I, like most people, would try in some way to put them down. I repeat, i would take the risk of murdering someone with a firearm.

But earlier you said you wouldn't.

Which is it?

And yet they're still being produced even though it's illegal.

And your point? making guns illegal would not result in illegal gun factories cropping up everywhere. Making a firearm is a highly skilled and technical job. Any idiot can set up some hydroponic lights in their basement.

Unless you carry a loaded gun with you at all times(something which is most likely not legal) then you can't really say you have the ability to meet fire with fire.

Wrong! I have my concealed carry permit. I did do everything legally required to carry my pistol, and I carry it with me 99% of the time. I even carry it with me on the plane while I am at work. The only time I do not carry is when I goto a place with a no-ccw sign, which is not very often. All this while being fully legal.

But earlier you said you wouldn't.

Which is it?

A typo, I mean't I would not

Wrong! I have my concealed carry permit. I did do everything legally required to carry my pistol, and I carry it with me 99% of the time. I even carry it with me on the plane while I am at work. The only time I do not carry is when I goto a place with a no-ccw sign, which is not very often. All this while being fully legal.

How can you carry a loaded gun on an aeroplane?

Are you satisified with being allowed to carry/use your firearms only on private property? Never in public?

(I'm guessing no)

Going along this route:

I can own/operate any vehicle on my property, from a little rusty compact to a tractor trailer.

I only need some licensing to operate them on the roads.

If this were true for firearms, I wouldn't complain.

As it stands now, there are multiple restrictions on any ownership in the entire US,ranging from a criminal background check to complete banning.

In the areas that allow CCW, there are courses that have to be taken and a license in most places. I have no problem w/ those as long as they are not unduly restrictive.

I won't buy anymore guns. My family has enough to be acting rebels in a war. Although my brother has an H&K submachine gun, and I'm quite jealous.

And 48 states in the US have some form of CCW and crime has kept dropping. By your arguement, it should be increasing exponentially.
I am not arguing that having more guns automatically equals more crime. And surely there are some restrictions on concealed carry permits?

And your point? making guns illegal would not result in illegal gun factories cropping up everywhere. Making a firearm is a highly skilled and technical job. Any idiot can set up some hydroponic lights in their basement.

A simple firearm can be made from components available at any hardware store.

Ollie, you do realize that your chart is hardly current? It spans 1998 to 2000. Things have changed ALOT in 6 years.

You really want to have the ability to kill another person?

No, I want the ABILITY to protect myself, my family and my home from those who would seek to harm or steal from me and mine.

We obviously have 2 completely different outlooks. I believe everyone has the right to provide for their own defense by whatever means they see fit to use. If that means strapping the biggest damned cannon you can find to your hip, so be it. If you don't choose to use a firearm, that is ALSO your right

Your belief says I cannot have those means because you don't like guns. Yours tells my girlfriend that she cannot carry the means to defend herself from a would-be mugger or rapist.

A typo, I mean't I would not

So, yes, you think getting withing arm distance of a violent individual is a logical thing to do in comparison to stopping them from a safe distance.

Wrong! I have my concealed carry permit. I did do everything legally required to carry my pistol, and I carry it with me 99% of the time. I even carry it with me on the plane while I am at work. The only time I do not carry is when I goto a place with a no-ccw sign, which is not very often. All this while being fully legal.
99%=/=100%
See, I'm right. I am well aware of concealed carry permits, but there are restrictions to them, as you mentioned.

How can you carry a loaded gun on an aeroplane?

I work as a pilot, There are no federal air regulations that say I may not carry a gun on a plane.

And your point? making guns illegal would not result in illegal gun factories cropping up everywhere. Making a firearm is a highly skilled and technical job. Any idiot can set up some hydroponic lights in their basement.

They also just get imported from other places. The criminals tend not to care about that.

99%=/=100%
See, I'm right. I am well aware of concealed carry permits, but there are restrictions to them, as you mentioned.

And who here has called for no restrictions?

Ollie, you do realize that your chart is hardly current? It spans 1998 to 2000. Things have changed ALOT in 6 years.



No, I want the ABILITY to protect myself, my family and my home from those who would seek to harm or steal from me and mine.

We obviously have 2 completely different outlooks. I believe everyone has the right to provide for their own defense by whatever means they see fit to use. If that means strapping the biggest damned cannon you can find to your hip, so be it. If you don't choose to use a firearm, that is ALSO your right

Your belief says I cannot have those means because you don't like guns. Yours tells my girlfriend that she cannot carry the means to defend herself from a would-be mugger or rapist.

No not at all. By banning gun ownership you are denying the right to kill. People in my country manage to protect themselves reasonably well enough without using firearms.

I work as a pilot, There are no federal air regulations that say I may not carry a gun on a plane.

Ah, I thought you mean't as a passenger. You had me quite worried there.

Hey Kecibukia, you were wrong on one small point. Ownership of a silencer is legal here in the US, it takes a buttload of paperwork and permission from several levels of law enforcment, but you can own one. Hell a company was just advertising them in a autopistols buyers guide.

Everything else you've said, I agree 100%.

And who here has called for no restrictions?
Nobody that I noticed.

No not at all. By banning gun ownership you are denying the right to kill. People in my country manage to protect themselves reasonably well enough without using firearms.
So there isn't a black market for firearms and the civilians and left armless vis-a-vis an armed criminal force? And the police are omni-present and prevent all crimes? And this is all on another planet, far far away?

Ah, I thought you mean't as a passenger. You had me quite worried there.

Nah, I do work in the private sector so it's really not a big deal.

So there isn't a black market for firearms and the civilians and left armless vis-a-vis an armed criminal force? And the police are omni-present and prevent all crimes? And this is all on another planet, far far away?

You still don't get it do you? If there are fewer guns, then demand drops. If there are fewer legal guns to worry about or regulate, then the authorities have more time and resources to crack down on black market / illegal guns.

No not at all. By banning gun ownership you are denying the right to kill. People in my country manage to protect themselves reasonably well enough without using firearms.

You are still missing the main problem with that. Banning guns is NOT going to stop criminals from getting there hands on them. If they cannot get them from civilians, they'll do what someone did recently in Seattle, steal them from the cops.

You don't feel the need to own or carry a firearm to defend yourself, that is entirely up to you. I don't have the right to tell you otherwise. But don't ever tell me that I don't have the right to defend myself because you don't like guns. You don't have that right.

You are still missing the main problem with that. Banning guns is NOT going to stop criminals from getting there hands on them. If they cannot get them from civilians, they'll do what someone did recently in Seattle, steal them from the cops.

You don't feel the need to own or carry a firearm to defend yourself, that is entirely up to you. I don't have the right to tell you otherwise. But don't ever tell me that I don't have the right to defend myself because you don't like guns. You don't have that right.

Morrally I think I do. I have the right to tell anybody in the world that they don't have the right to have the ability to kill another human being.

You still don't get it do you? If there are fewer guns, then demand drops. If there are fewer legal guns to worry about or regulate, then the authorities have more time and resources to crack down on black market / illegal guns.
No, if there are fewer guns, the demand increases. Clearly shown by the increase in smuggling in the UK.

The authorities should be concerning themselves w/ criminals in the first place w/o spending the time and resources monitoring those who actually follow the law.

You still don't get it do you? If there are fewer guns, then demand drops. If there are fewer legal guns to worry about or regulate, then the authorities have more time and resources to crack down on black market / illegal guns.

That is not how supply and demand works!

You still don't get it do you? If there are fewer guns, then demand drops. If there are fewer legal guns to worry about or regulate, then the authorities have more time and resources to crack down on black market / illegal guns.
How overly trusting you are of the autorities and their supposed efficiency. The authorities would do nothing of the sort. Sorry, I do not buy that argument. Neither will I accept being unarmed relative to those who would threaten my well-being.

As for cracking down on criminals...erm they'd just get smarter...they always do.

The authorities should be concerning themselves w/ criminals in the first place w/o spending the time and resources monitoring those who actually follow the law.

Correct. No legal guns no need to spend time and resources monitoring. As I said.

Morrally I think I do. I have the right to tell anybody in the world that they don't have the right to have the ability to kill another human being.

Once again, that is your opinion. I feel I morally have the right to defend my family from harm, up to and including killing the person who is attempting to harm them.

It's interesting that your opinion infringes on my freedoms/safety than mine does on yours.

How overly trusting you are of the autorities and their supposed efficiency. The authorities would do nothing of the sort. Sorry, I do not buy that argument. Neither will I accept being unarmed relative to those who would threaten my well-being.

As for cracking down on criminals...erm they'd just get smarter...they always do.

I might not trust the government but I trust the police. Thats their job thats what they are trained for. Fighting crime.

Morrally I think I do. I have the right to tell anybody in the world that they don't have the right to have the ability to kill another human being.

So, you are telling me that because you are morally opposed to a aggressor being hurt is cause for all of us to throw down our arms and become sheep? I think not.

Correct. No legal guns no need to spend time and resources monitoring. As I said.

Just like they're not monitoring you in the UK? Right? Sure. How about that recent travel monitoring plan.

They shouldn't have a "need" to monitor my legal activities in the first place.

Really?

Alongside the call for an Arms Trade Treaty, the Control Arms campaign is also calling for:


Governments to develop and strengthen regional arms-control.

And that threatens gun ownership how?


Governments to rigorously control national arms exports, brokers and dealers, and do more to prevent law enforcers misusing their weapons and to protect citizens from armed violence.

Again, same question again. Whats wrong with this?



Local authorities and community leaders to help improve safety at a community level

That doesnt seem a good idea.


by developing projects to reduce the local availability

OK, maybe represents a minor attack on gun ownership.


and demand for arms.

And whats wrong with that? Even supposed gun owners should support attempts to reduce demand, which suggests tackling any concerns which would make people want to have a gun, like reducing crime etc.

Once again, that is your opinion. I feel I morally have the right to defend my family from harm, up to and including killing the person who is attempting to harm them.

It's interesting that your opinion infringes on my freedoms/safety than mine does on yours.

(I assume you mean't more than mine does on yours.)

I disagree. Your freedom to carry a firearm infringes on my right not to be an innocent bystander.

Really?

Alongside the call for an Arms Trade Treaty, the Control Arms campaign is also calling for:


Governments to develop and strengthen regional arms-control.

And that threatens gun ownership how?


Governments to rigorously control national arms exports, brokers and dealers, and do more to prevent law enforcers misusing their weapons and to protect citizens from armed violence.

Again, same question again. Whats wrong with this?



Local authorities and community leaders to help improve safety at a community level

That doesnt seem a good idea.


by developing projects to reduce the local availability

OK, maybe represents a minor attack on gun ownership.


and demand for arms.

And whats wrong with that? Even supposed gun owners should support attempts to reduce demand, which suggests tackling any concerns which would make people want to have a gun, like reducing crime etc.

So, you are telling me that because you are morally opposed to a aggressor being hurt is cause for all of us to throw down our arms and become sheep? I think not.

Like I said before, we don't live by the law of the jungle. How do you become a sheep by throwing down your guns? Firearms are not the only way of defending yourself.

(I assume you mean't more than mine does on yours.)

I disagree. Your freedom to carry a firearm infringes on my right not to be an innocent bystander.

Regardless of what happens, you would be a innocent bystander. So, would you prefer that the agressor is taken out quickly, our would you prefer that he takes out a few people?


Sheesh, you act as though we start gunfighting at the drop of a hat. :rolleyes:

I might not trust the government but I trust the police. Thats their job thats what they are trained for. Fighting crime.
Again, they are not omnipresent and they are often negligent in their duty. Sorry, but I disagree that they are better suited to offer me protection than I myself am.

Regardless of what happens, you would be a innocent bystander. So, would you prefer that the agressor is taken out quickly, our would you prefer that he takes out a few people?


Sheesh, you act as though we start gunfighting at the drop of a hat. :rolleyes:

Sheesh, that seems to be the prevalent attitude here. "Someone threatens me, I shoot..."

And that threatens gun ownership how?



Again, same question again. Whats wrong with this?




That doesnt seem a good idea.



OK, maybe represents a minor attack on gun ownership.



And whats wrong with that? Even supposed gun owners should support attempts to reduce demand, which suggests tackling any concerns which would make people want to have a gun, like reducing crime etc.


Once again, when the head of the major group pushing this has openly called for civilian disarmament unless the "prove" they "need" a firearm and the majority of civilian firearms are in the US and have NOTHING to do w/ crime, that is a call for US civilian disarmament.

Like I said before, we don't live by the law of the jungle. How do you become a sheep by throwing down your guns? Firearms are not the only way of defending yourself.

But, once again, they are the most effective.

Mt-Tau, haven't you ever noticed? Anti-firearms people tend to believe that anyone who possesses and carries a gun on them is obviously a lunatic just waiting to blow a fuse and start gunning down innocent civilians.

Im actually quite surprised that on such a left wing forum, so many people are overly enthusiastic about their pride in their guns.

Again, they are not omnipresent and they are often negligent in their duty. Sorry, but I disagree that they are better suited to offer me protection than I myself am.

Personally I think that could just be a difference between the American and British mindset. Many Americans seem to have the attitude that they know best, better than government, police, etc, whereas that mindset doesn't seem to so windspread here. (No offence mean't just an observation).

Sheesh, that seems to be the prevalent attitude here. "Someone threatens me, I shoot..."

Not exactly, if someone says they are going to kill me, I will report it. If someone had a gun/knife and says the same, there is your threat. The great thing about here is it recognized that we do not have to live in fear of such threats and we do not have to bow down to criminals.

I might not trust the government but I trust the police. Thats their job thats what they are trained for. Fighting crime.

And yet they're not omnipresent, omnipotent, or superhuman. And, once again, I refer you back to the obligations the police have in the US.

And yet they're not omnipresent, omnipotent, or superhuman. And, once again, I refer you back to the obligations the police have in the US.

And I refer you back to the answer I gave before on that issue.

Personally I think that could just be a difference between the American and British mindset. Many Americans seem to have the attitude that they know best, better than government, police, etc, whereas that mindset doesn't seem to so windspread here. (No offence mean't just an observation).
I am in Britain. And I study your legal and criminal system. I am not impressed.

Personally I think that could just be a difference between the American and British mindset. Many Americans seem to have the attitude that they know best, better than government, police, etc, whereas that mindset doesn't seem to so windspread here. (No offence mean't just an observation).

It is different. W/ that I'll agree. I know what's best for myself and my family. I don't say that you should own a firearm nor be forced to defend yourself w/ one. I take it personally when someone says I shouldn't be "allowed" to defend myself w/ one because "they" don't like firearms.

I am in Britain. And I study your legal and criminal system. I am not impressed.

In what way?

Mt-Tau, haven't you ever noticed? Anti-firearms people tend to believe that anyone who possesses and carries a gun on them is obviously a lunatic just waiting to blow a fuse and start gunning down innocent civilians.

It is easier to demonize us rather than argue with us.

Knock over a Tyrannosaurus Rex.

In what way?
In the way it operates. Your judiciary has too little power, your police force is inefficient and enjoys too much power and your legal system is in need of immediate overhaul. I firmly advocate more civilian freedoms. The government should not tell me whether or not I can carry arms, beyond basic licencing.

And I refer you back to the answer I gave before on that issue.

Which really didn't say anything. The police here have no obligation nor can they be everywhere. They can't stop most crime, just react to it.

It is different. W/ that I'll agree. I know what's best for myself and my family. I don't say that you should own a firearm nor be forced to defend yourself w/ one. I take it personally when someone says I shouldn't be "allowed" to defend myself w/ one because "they" don't like firearms.

Its not just me. Like I say it is a difference between our societies. General public opinion in the UK is that gun controls in this country should be stricter, not looser, because there is too much gun crime. I think I'm safe in saying in the US you have the opposite belief but for the same reasons.

It is easier to demonize us rather than argue with us.

Even though the fact that very few legal firearm owners commit crimes and that CCW holders are over 10X LESS likely to commit ANY crime than the average citizen.

Regardless of what happens, you would be a innocent bystander. So, would you prefer that the agressor is taken out quickly, our would you prefer that he takes out a few people?


Sheesh, you act as though we start gunfighting at the drop of a hat. :rolleyes:
*Drops a hat*

*Ducks and covers*

Its not just me. Like I say it is a difference between our societies. General public opinion in the UK is that gun controls in this country should be stricter, not looser, because there is too much gun crime. I think I'm safe in saying in the US you have the opposite belief but for the same reasons.

That's why I didn't single you out specifically. You're not the only one I've gotten this from.

I just find it ironic that in the UK, they keep making the laws stricter, yet crime is increasing while in the US, dozens of states have "relaxed" there laws and crime keeps dropping.

It's not firearm specific.

*Drops a hat*

*Ducks and covers*

*Belches loudly*

Now belching at the drop of a hat... ;)

And firearms are the only possible means for defending agains crime!:eek:

No, actually they aren't. They are a way.

(:eek: )

Did I say that? Did I anywhere claim that there should be 'no' regulation whatsoever?

A simple "no" would be sufficient. I've encountered people who take the position described so many times that I felt it necessary to ask. That's all.

Im actually quite surprised that on such a left wing forum, so many people are overly enthusiastic about their pride in their guns.

Out of 100 NS forumer members....

40 will be hardcore socialists
30 will be Hardcore capitalists
the remaining 30 percent are ATF agents posing as members of either side.

Kill or be killed? Back to the jungle? We're supposed to be civilised you know.

Tell that to the person attempting to kill you. Maybe they will show compassion for you and spare your life. Maybe not.


Doesn't work for a lot of people.

No, actually they aren't. They are a way.

(:eek: )

In fact, they are also not the only way to commit violent crime.

Here in the US, 94 percent of violent crime is committed without a firearm of any kind at all.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.

So, getting rid of guns would probably reduce violent crime by 6 percent at a maximum.

Less gun ownership = less gun killings

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

Widespread gun ownership, yet known for very low levels of violent crime, by firearms or otherwise.

A simple "no" would be sufficient. I've encountered people who take the position described so many times that I felt it necessary to ask. That's all.

Here you'll rarely find people who want unfettered access. I've also encountered too many people that accuse me of wanting such just because I am pro-firearm. I've actually had people ask me if I thought it was good for children to be given nukes.

But like you say, i don't think there are many societys in the world who are socially responsible enough as a whole to "handle" mass gun ownership.

I also said that I think it is possible to make said societies responsible. I don't think political pissing matches are a good way to do it. Some of us would actually like to solve the problem at hand. :)

Even better, look at this graph:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

See the peak at around 1993? And the slide down to 2003?

During that time, the number of guns actively owned in the US rose from 200 million to 300 million.

So 100 million more guns, but a lot less crime. Go figure.

Guns don't cause crime. At least not in the US. But social ills and stupid policies cause crime.

The drop in 1993 marks the start of the demolition of every major housing project in the US - where the poor were farmed out and scattered to Section 8 houses rather than warehoused in huge flats.

Decentralize the poor if you want to lower violent crime.

Heres something we can agree on. Not sure about minors though, you'd need a hell of a lot of supervision there.

What's this? Common ground? I wonder how this can actually be used to solve the problems presented in this thread. What wonders can be accomplished when one goes for a walk in the other guy's shoes (! :eek: @ everyone).

I also said that I think it is possible to make said societies responsible. I don't think political pissing matches are a good way to do it. Some of us would actually like to solve the problem at hand. :)

I find it ironic that most US anti-gun organization oppose youth safety training unless it is specifically "guns=evil".

Even better, look at this graph:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/guncrime.htm

See the peak at around 1993? And the slide down to 2003?

During that time, the number of guns actively owned in the US rose from 200 million to 300 million.

So 100 million more guns, but a lot less crime. Go figure.

Guns don't cause crime. At least not in the US. But social ills and stupid policies cause crime.

The drop in 1993 marks the start of the demolition of every major housing project in the US - where the poor were farmed out and scattered to Section 8 houses rather than warehoused in huge flats.

Decentralize the poor if you want to lower violent crime.

And if you want to lower it another 60 percent or so, end the war on drugs.

I've actually had people ask me if I thought it was good for children to be given nukes.

Yeah, I've encountered this sort of brilliant reasoning as well. :headbang: :rolleyes:

Yeah, I've encountered this sort of brilliant reasoning as well. :headbang: :rolleyes:

People wonder why gun owners in the US are so defensive. I think the description of this thread title is a perfect example. Several groups who intend to "reduce" civilian firearm ownership, the majority of which is in the US, through an organization that has a statue of a handgun twisted into a knot in front of its ' main building. We had a presidential candidate who only went off the campaign trail once in order to vote AGAINST a measure to protect the firearm industry against frivolous lawsuits. This same candidate was also heavily supported by groups that were funded by the same person/people that fund the international anti-gun groups. We have had laws passed based on blatant lies by anti-gun groups comparing hunting rifles to machine guns. We have had attempted measures to destroy the ammuntion industry through lies and regulation. We have also had numerous cities/states that have passed "reasonable" registration programs only to turn around and confiscate said registered weapons or stop allowing registration at all.

Even w/ all the successes over the last ten years, we have a right to be defensive.

In fact, they are also not the only way to commit violent crime.

Here in the US, 94 percent of violent crime is committed without a firearm of any kind at all.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm

Incidents involving a firearm represented 6% of the 4.8 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2004.

So, getting rid of guns would probably reduce violent crime by 6 percent at a maximum.

But those figures don't include murders? So the total might be higher...
# The FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that 66% of the 16,137 murders in 2004 were committed with firearms.
I don't understand why they don't say anything about fatal firearm-related crime on the same page.

But those figures don't include murders? So the total might be higher...

I don't understand why they don't say anything about fatal firearm-related crime on the same page.

So the total would be 4.816 million violent crimes if you include murders. Statistically it doesn't make that much of a difference

So the total would be 4.816 million violent crimes if you include murders. Statistically it doesn't make that much of a difference
You're right there. About 0.22%.

I am wearing tank tops to make my arms look bigger....

My contributions towards IANSA "Global week of action against small arms":

Another SPR, this one in Coyote tan.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14421131218.jpg&s=f5

4 AKMs, Romanian, Hungarian, and Polish

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14421262259.jpg&s=f5

M60, Chi-com AK47, 1960's M16A1, m14.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14421312581.jpg&s=f5

A 7.62x39 VEPR K. Beautiful weapon. Made in Russia and imported to the US.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14421331917.jpg&s=f5

A trio of nice kalashnikovs and an AR-15

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14421391664.jpg&s=f5

A Polish RPD and an American 1919.

http://putfile.com/pic.php?pic=5/14421403835.jpg&s=f5

Each one of these weapons is legal in 46 of 50 states.

What am I doing to celebrate "Global week of action against small arms"? Buying lots of handguns and stealing a 16"/50 Mark 7 off the Iowa.

Rather liking those AK's.....

Techically the police are under NO obligation to protect you. NONE! There have been US Supreme Court renderings to that effect. They are to protect the community as a whole not any specific member.

And yet they're not omnipresent, omnipotent, or superhuman. And, once again, I refer you back to the obligations the police have in the US.

Techically the police are under NO obligation to protect you. NONE! There have been US Supreme Court renderings to that effect. They are to protect the community as a whole not any specific member.

And yet they're not omnipresent, omnipotent, or superhuman. And, once again, I refer you back to the obligations the police have in the US.

archery is fun and very relaxing.

Many people feel the exact same way about target shooting with firearms.

If you think about it, there is little difference between the two activities, other than the noise and the physical mechanics of launching the two projectiles at the target.

Just got back from the range. I went through about 1200 rounds of 45 ACP.

So when do you pick up your new thumbs ? Thats a lot of rounds to be putting in the mag...:D

I get my son working on the refills ...and I only load six rounds per clip...and I still run out of steam at about 600 rounds ..:D

4 mags at a time

Just got back from the range. I went through about 1200 rounds of 45 ACP. I went to the range today and put 100 rds down the pipe of the SKS. No jams, not FTFs, no FTEs, just perfectly commie goodness.

Only thing that stinks about commie ammo is that it smells like burnt urine when it's fired :eek: Gotta hold your breath for a second or two to allow for the gas to clear.

Rather liking those AK's.....

They're really cool guns.

In the process of buying a new AR-15, ammo, and right now my mom and dad are both buying Sig Sauer 226 pistols.
You must be insanely rich, or just insane, to be buying so many guns.

As long as they're big guns, you're compliant with this particular week.

You must be insanely rich, or just insane, to be buying so many guns.

As long as they're big guns, you're compliant with this particular week.

Unless of course your IANSA and classify RPG's as "small arms".

Gun control. Ther theory that a 130 pound 80 year old man should have to fist fight with a 20 year old attempted murderer.

Ah, he was going to die soon anyway.

Ollieland, you have many many misconceptions.
Owning a firearm doesnt not mean you will kill someone, or even use it against another human. The vast majority of defensive gun uses, i.e. used in prevention of a crime, does not even involve discharging said firearm.

Killing a person isn't the only thing a firearm is designed to do. Look into the S&W model 52. Not very good at killing a person at all.

The police/justice system does very little in the way of protection. In fact that isn't even their primary function. Their primary function is to investigate, apprehend and punish criminals after a crime has been commited. Every human being has a right to self defense. A firearm can simply be a tool of self defense.

It is amazingly easy to make a firearm. It isn't a highly skilled endeavor at all. From simply zip guns to seeming highly sophisticated firearms, they have all been successfully manufactured in garage metal shops.

Optimum distance in gun self defense is about 7 yards. If someone were to let the criminal get within arms reach then yes, they run the risk of letting someone get their hands on them before they can respond by pulling a handgun. The key is not to let them get that close.


Oh and Ifreann,
99%=/=100%
See, I'm right. I am well aware of concealed carry permits, but there are restrictions to them, as you mentioned.
are you seriously arguing that since you can only carry CCW 99% and not 100% you shouldn't be able to carry at all?

I went to the range today and put 100 rds down the pipe of the SKS. No jams, not FTFs, no FTEs, just perfectly commie goodness.
:eek:
COMMIE!!!

*flees*

You must be insanely rich, or just insane, to be buying so many guns.

As long as they're big guns, you're compliant with this particular week.

What's wrong with small guns? There's a definite need for compact rifles and pistols. ETA: Ar15-40". Sig226 8" approx. AK: 38". SKS:46 w/ bayonet extended.

FYI: I am a rather poor college student. And my parents? Middle class. I try to build my own rifles when I can, because it means it will be built right, and I save money. It's not as hard as people make it but not as easy as Anti-gun nazis such as Schumer and Feinswine make it out to be.

:eek:
COMMIE!!!

*flees*

Only for the next 48 hours!

Unless of course your IANSA and classify RPG's as "small arms".


speaking of RPG's ...anyone ever fire one and have a little " fin " malfunction...? talk about a " change your shorts " moment...:D

they aint no bottle rockets...

Btw did anyone go to the fort Knox area machine gun convention ?



I heard it was a real " blast "


I'm done now...time for bed...beer is gone

Basically, I cleaned my Mossberg 500 pistol-grip and bought a new box of shells. Then, I cleaned my .45 Ruger DA97, and bought a new box of 235gr Lawman bullets. I'm against capital punishment, but we all retain the right to self-defence. At the risk of transgessing ruleswise, why not celebrate a week with small-arms. It's worked very well for the Swiss.

Hehe I found a box of XM193 I didn't know I had. Now if only I actually had a weapon to shoot it with! YAARRR!

In the process of buying a new AR-15, ammo, and right now my mom and dad are both buying Sig Sauer 226 pistols.

Uhh... Good for you?

I probably won't be doing all that much myself considering I already live in a country where not every Tom, Dick and Harry have guns.

You know what they say,
over at the NRA
Guns have never killed anyone. People kill people because of SIN.
(Okay, so it's over at theconservativevoice.com (http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/14852.html), but that didn't rhyme...)
:p

I might not trust the government but I trust the police. Thats their job thats what they are trained for. Fighting crime.
And you expect the police to instantly materialize the moment someone accosts you on the street or breaks into your house?

Morrally I think I do. I have the right to tell anybody in the world that they don't have the right to have the ability to kill another human being.
No, what you're doing is telling people that they don't have the right to defend their own lives from violent criminals -- and there's absolutely nothing moral, rational or reasonable about that.

I am not arguing that having more guns automatically equals more crime. And surely there are some restrictions on concealed carry permits?
Depends on the state, but the safest state in the entire U.S., on a pretty consistent basis, is Vermont. Vermont has never had a concealed carry permit scheme -- they have what is known as "universal carry."

Anyone sixteen years of age or older who is a permanent resident or U.S. citizen and who has not been convicted of a felony or legally ajudicated mentally incompetent can carry a concealed or unconcealed handgun in Vermont. :)

Yes I do. What i don't do is ensure I have the ability to kill someone who tries to mug me.
Your startlingly irresponsible behaviour is your own perogative, but don't force your deathwish on others.

Lax gun laws : A sign that society is in such a crap state that people need to carry lethal devices with them to protect themselves wherever they go.
Except, of course, for the fact that the safest U.S. states are the ones with lax gun laws, while the more dangerous places are predominantly ones with strict gun laws.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland

Widespread gun ownership, yet known for very low levels of violent crime, by firearms or otherwise.

That's only because they're all afraid of those wicked ski-borne pikemen.

Oh and Ifreann,

are you seriously arguing that since you can only carry CCW 99% and not 100% you shouldn't be able to carry at all?
I wasn't arguing anything like that. My point was you can't carry guns everywhere, and as such they are less effective as methods of self defence.

Take out all the countries with few / corrupt / ineffecient law enforcement and the US still comes near the top. You can't deny the facts.
How about the fact that the US with it's heterogenity has always been more violent than those countries?

Uhh... Good for you?

I probably won't be doing all that much myself considering I already live in a country where not every Tom, Dick and Harry have guns.

Yes, good for me. My goal is to hopefully collect all the major small arms of the cold war. Still have a long way to go.

speaking of RPG's ...anyone ever fire one and have a little " fin " malfunction...? talk about a " change your shorts " moment...:D

they aint no bottle rockets...

Btw did anyone go to the fort Knox area machine gun convention ?



I heard it was a real " blast "


I'm done now...time for bed...beer is gone

You are my new hero! :fluffle:

FYI: I am a rather poor college student. And my parents? Middle class. I try to build my own rifles when I can, because it means it will be built right, and I save money.
Sorry, I was misled by your weekly threads detailing your latest gun purchase.

Why do you need so many guns?

Sorry, I was misled by your weekly threads detailing your latest gun purchase.

Why do you need so many guns?

Why not? If you can afford to buy/build them, I say go for it.

Glock 23, Ruger P-94 or Sig P229..... decisions, decisions.....

Of course gun prohibition works, I mean all the government has to do if it wants something out of society is prohibit it [/sarcasm]

Let's look at the government's record of prohibiting things:

Booze: Nope, all we got from Prohibition was a blackmarket in alcohol, and an extremely violent one at that.

Narcotics: Another failure.

In Britain, which has the most fascist gun laws in the civilised world, if you want an illegal firearm, all you need is to know which pubs to go to. One hundred pounds or so will get you a decent firearm.

Ollieman's objection that if the police weren't monitoring illegal firearms, they would have the resources to crack down on smuggling is a crock. Governments will devote limitless resources to crack down on drugs, and the problem is, and always has gotten worse!

It is the height of arrogance for a politician to suggest that state prohibitions can work, and it is the height of stupidity to believe them.

It of course need not be noted that every genocide in the last one hundred years has been preceeded by disarmament of the population targetted.

The escalating violent crime in Britain speaks for itself, as does the same escalation in Australia.

Criminals will always get guns, whether legally, or illegally. To disarm the civilian population is to let criminals walk around like foxes among chickens.

The police cannot protect us, the best they can do is a passable job at finding and prosecuting the criminals.

Consider a society in which the police were so omnipresent and powerful as to be able to protect us. I have, and I call it a Police State.

In Britain, this is exactly what has happened. Civilian disarmament has made Britons utterly dependent on the state to protect them, and as a result, Britain has more CCTV cameras than any other country on Earth, and a slew of intolerable intrusions on liberty.

Why do you need so many guns?

The only answer that question deserves is "fuck you".

Yes, good for me. My goal is to hopefully collect all the major small arms of the cold war. Still have a long way to go.


you know how Monty Python did the " spam ' thing ?


I want them to one on guns ...wonderfull guns !


They can help us sing and celibrate !!!!


:D :D :D :D

guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns, guns!


You know, you write that word enough and it starts to not look like a word at all.:cool:

I wasn't arguing anything like that. My point was you can't carry guns everywhere, and as such they are less effective as methods of self defence.
Because of laws and regulations, that only LAC's follow btw, guns can't be used in all self defense situations, that's true.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are the most effective means of self defense for the vast majority of situations.

Can you show me any other form of self defense that is more effective?

Because of laws and regulations, that only LAC's follow btw, guns can't be used in all self defense situations, that's true.

But that doesn't change the fact that they are the most effective means of self defense for the vast majority of situations.

Can you show me any other form of self defense that is more effective?

The "Raise your hands and ask what they want" defense works in most cases of armed robbery much better than any gun.

In other cases it doesn't work so well (a murderer or a rapist), but you are less likely to be able to carry a weapon in those circumstances, so pepper spray, a knife, or a taser is likely to be more effective.

What we always tell people at the martial arts dojo is: "If you're going to carry a weapon, you need to be prepared to have it used against you.", so while I understand the need for guns, I think many gun-owners overestimate their usefulness in self-defense, which can itself be a fatal mistake.

The "Raise your hands and ask what they want" defense works in most cases of armed robbery much better than any gun. Umm it doesn't work at all.... the roll over and die approach is just giving up. You lose control of the situation, and that's wrong. Maintaining control is the only way to ensure your defense. Hoping someone will be kind to you is just rose colored glasses.

In other cases it doesn't work so well (a murderer or a rapist), but you are less likely to be able to carry a weapon in those circumstances, so pepper spray, a knife, or a taser is likely to be more effective. I don't understand how you say it doesn't work so well. Your wording makes no sense.
Of the estimated 1 million-3million defensive gun uses in the US the vast majority does not even involve the discharge of the firearm. The firearm is still much more effective than any of the options you gave.

What we always tell people at the martial arts dojo is: "If you're going to carry a weapon, you need to be prepared to have it used against you.", so while I understand the need for guns, I think many gun-owners overestimate their usefulness in self-defense, which can itself be a fatal mistake.
If a person chooses to carry a firearm in self defense, they need to take the responsibility to be able to use the firearm effectively, and that includes knowing when and how to carry.

Attempting to rely on almost any other means of self defense requires almost as much physical condition as anything else. If your attacker is more physically capable than you are, you're toast.

The firearm goes a long way to equalize the situation.