NationStates Jolt Archive

Just out of curiosity, as the mere ownership of firearms is contoversial here in NSG, who owns firearms, of what sort, and, for comparitive purposes, what's your nationality?

American

3 bolt action rifles
2 semi-auto rifles
1 12 ga shotgun
1 semi-auto pistol

I might have a toy gun around here from the good old days.

American

.22 Semi Automatic rifle
12 gauge shotgun

I'm from Michigan and I have a Yugoslavian SKS and a Romanian AK-47. I've always been fascinated with Soviet military equipment.

And just for the record, I currently own no firearms, although I have owned hunting rifles and shotguns in the past, when I was living in the States. Contrary to popular belief, firearms are not illegal in Japan. However, the redtape and expense is prohibitive.

I used to own a couple of crossbows for target practice fun.

I also used to go target shooting at the gun ranges in the mountains with my moms boyfriend when I was in Jr High. We shot 22's, 35's, and a handgun that he referred to as a "Tommy Gun".

Before that in about 5th and 6th grade my grandfather would take me shotgun shooting on our property in Arizona.

I've never been hunting and I'd never want to go hunting.

I don't think there is anything wrong with ownng a firearm for protection or for hunting FOR FOOD (trophy hunters make me sick). I do think that there shoudl be checks on people who are tyring to buy guns to make sure they dont have a violent history.

You didn't have one that was right for me so I voted yes, owns 1-2. (American)

I own one handgun. It is a family heirloom (literally) and I keep it oiled and wrapped in a chamois cloth, locked in an ammo can, and further locke din my safe. I do not own ammunition for it. I will never shoot it.

I believe we should ban the ownership of handguns. There is no reason why civilians should have them, and small reason for military to have them these days.

As for hunting weapons, I believe anything within reason is fine. I hunt for food twice a year (fathers rifle) and realize that a good rifle is a decent military weapon, and a shotgun is better than a pistol for home defense.
Hunting for fun is pathetic. Hunting for food if properly controlled helps the animal population far moret han it hinders it.

American

9x18 Makarov

I like shooting. Plus it gives me peice of mind. I'm a single woman who lives alone in a town that has no sheriff after midnight (sometimes no sheriff at all), and plenty of meth heads. I've had my house broken into before as well. I've been stalked before. Had crazy ex's that have threatened my life (yes I took all legally appropriate measures). What can I say, I feel safer when I sleep at night.

So what about people who own firearms and are opposed to the ownership of them?

So what about people who own firearms and are opposed to the ownership of them?

That would be an oxymoron, or a hypocrite.

1 .270 Rifle
1 .22 Marlin Semi-Automatic Carbine
1 .22 Revolver
1 .22 Plastic body Rifle
1 12 guage shotgun
1 Double-barreled shotgun from 1860s

All of them I use for hunting or target practice, except for the Shotgun from the 1860s...all of them are family heirlooms, which came from my Dad's side of the family. I haven't hunted in years, however, when I do, it's purely for food.

I highly disapprove of Sports hunters, even sports fishermen.

Just a twelve guage for clay pigeon shooting.(And the odd rabbit).

That would be an oxymoron, or a hypocrite.

Or an anarchocommunist.

You didn't have one that was right for me so I voted yes, owns 1-2. (American)

I own one handgun. It is a family heirloom (literally) and I keep it oiled and wrapped in a chamois cloth, locked in an ammo can, and further locke din my safe. I do not own ammunition for it. I will never shoot it.

I believe we should ban the ownership of handguns. There is no reason why civilians should have them, and small reason for military to have them these days.

As for hunting weapons, I believe anything within reason is fine. I hunt for food twice a year (fathers rifle) and realize that a good rifle is a decent military weapon, and a shotgun is better than a pistol for home defense.
Hunting for fun is pathetic. Hunting for food if properly controlled helps the animal population far moret han it hinders it.

That would be an oxymoron, or a hypocrite.

Perhaps not.

A springfiled 1911 pistol, an old mosin nagant m44, a .22 rifle.

a shotgun is better than a pistol for home defense.

I'll agree on that, depending on what sort of ammo is being used. I'd be afraid some jackass would put slugs in the old 12 gauge and shoot through the bad guy and into the neighbors apartment. I think if frangible ammunition were widely available for pistols they'd be better.

Hunting for fun is pathetic. Hunting for food if properly controlled helps the animal population far moret han it hinders it.

When I was growing up I was taught never to kill an animal unless it was a pest or you were going to eat it. Trophy hunting is just morbid.

Just a twelve guage for clay pigeon shooting.(And the odd rabbit).


Angora Rabbit asks: But what did I do to you? :(

http://www.rabbitandcavydirectory.com/Images-BG-A-E/Hope0912.jpg

you've never had rabbit fricase, I can just tell. Or rabbit gumbo (oh my god my mouth is watering now...)

Rabbit is one of god's great foods. Unfortunately my wife has a bunny rabbit named Roo and I am not allowed to hunt any more. She would guilt me to death.

I've eaten rabbit (when I was a meat eater) and I seriously didn't like it.

I was just asking why he shoots odd rabbits anyway.

Angora Rabbit asks: But what did I do to you? :(

http://www.rabbitandcavydirectory.com/Images-BG-A-E/Hope0912.jpg

And that's why I could hunt, even if it is just for food.


...Yes I'm a meat eating hypocrite.

For the sake of argument, for those opposed to owning fire arms, what reasons are you opposed? Is it so people cant shoot other people? Well if that so, consider that a good portion of murders commited with a firearm, the shooter has obtained his weapon illegally. If we make owning a firearm illegal, then the honest, law abiding home owner is defenseless against the criminal who has obtained his weapon illegally. Are you against hunting animals? Well, if you're against that, then you are probably a vegatarian. If are a vegatarian, then that is your right and your decision to make, and its everyone elses if they want to eat meat. To the person above, who is believes trophy hunting is "morbid", but hunting for food is not, consider the fact that the meat is not kept intact inside the animal when the animal is stuffed, e.t.c. So what do they do with the meat? They eat it! Please correct me if I am wrong, and I am sorry if I have offended anyone with this statement. It is simply my opinion, no more valid than yours.

I'm a vegetarian that is not oppsoed to hunting animals as long as that animals is used as food.

Gregory, just one small point on trophy hunting. Many trophy hunters will just take the head, or the antlers (if we're talking about bucks) and leave the body to rot. Also, you have to gut and bleed the animal when it's freshly killed and it needs refrigeration, if you're trophy hunting you don't usually worry about these things.

that is just a bad argument, sorry.

If we make handguns illegel then home owners who insist on owning a weapon will be likely to get a shotgun which, as has been suggested before is a better home defense weapon than a pistol (with proper ammunition) The only reason criminals are able to GET handguns illegally is because every yahoo and his wife own a couple in their home (for home defense of course) so when a crackhead breaks in during the middle of the day, there they are, just waiting to be stolen and used to murder someone.

I say we outlaw them and only outlaws will have pistols. The rest of us will own real weapons that we can't hide as we walk into a bank.
a 12 guage Remington Pump loaded with number 6 or 8 shot is a far better weapon for my house.

as for trophy hunters: most give the meat to the guide, who sells it or gives it to friends and family. I sometimes keep my racks if they're nice. They sit on my desk taking up space for a year or so and then I cut them up for napping.

PS I thought angora rabbit was cute, myself :)

For the sake of argument

here we go again...

As for the OP:
I've never even seen a firearm in the real world let alone owned one, though my father has a secret box of mystery which I‘m not allowed to touch for some reason…

I do have a stick with a plastic pointy rock on it would that count?

Springfield M70 30-06 bolt action


Have only used it for target shooting. I will at some point in time hunt with it, but only for food, fur, and other uses but NOT for trophies.

here we go again...

As for the OP:
I've never even seen a firearm in the real world let alone owned one, though my father has a secret box of mystery which I‘m not allowed to touch for some reason…

I do have a stick with a plastic pointy rock on it would that count?

Do you have a license for your plastic pointy rock on a stick?

Angora Rabbit asks: But what did I do to you? :(

http://www.rabbitandcavydirectory.com/Images-BG-A-E/Hope0912.jpg

I will not pay the prices the butchers charge now for a meat that used to be for the peasents long ago.Rabbit is now seen as somehow posh.[/ old man style rant]
Anyway...


http://www.epicurious.com/recipes/recipe_views/views/101107

I've eaten rabbit (when I was a meat eater) and I seriously didn't like it.

I was just asking why he shoots odd rabbits anyway.
I gotta thing about odd rabbits.There plotting to take over the world I tell ya.We're no longer safe..*rocks back and fourth laughing crazily*;)

Do you have a license for your plastic pointy rock on a stick?

no but the cops won’t even try to pry stick from my cold dead hands!:mad:

if properly cooked rabbit is just...amazing!

no but the cops won’t even try to pry stick from my cold dead hands!:mad:

I for one would like to pre-emptively surrender to you.

I admit Snafturi that I am no expert on trophy hunting, as I have only hunted for food myself. I do know that taking the head or the antlers is illegal, and while that is trophy hunting, it is also illegal trophy hunting. On the hand gun argument, a hand gun is a valuable tool for many reasons. Marksmanship with a hand gun is a rather enjoyable sport, and a great home defense tool. Shotguns also work well, but a slug will keep going for a while, and a normal shell may spread and hit things you dont wanna hit, i.e. a valuable heirloom, dog, cat. You could make handguns illegal, but that would just drive them underground, and a criminal would still be able to get his hands on one if he wanted. Many firearms are illegal here in the states, for example, fully automatic weapons. If I really wanted one, could I get my hands on a full auto Ak-47, yes. Crackheads cant very easily break into a house and steal a hand gun if proper care is taken and the weapon is locked up in a safe. Plus, who's to say a someone couldn't just as easily steal a shotgun. Finally, as far as concealment goes, all you need to hide a sawed off shotgun is your average winter coat.

I'm not opposed to owening firearms per se, but I don't seee any good reason for the vast majority of the public to own a gun.

I'm not opposed to owening firearms per se, but I don't seee any good reason for the vast majority of the public to own a gun.

Shooting meth addicts.

Shooting meth addicts.

In Soviet Russia, meth addict shoot you!

I can't really own one, being a minor and all...I would like to get a spud gun though. ;)

I can't really own one, being a minor and all...I would like to get a spud gun though. ;)
Ouch. I got spudambushed once. By tikes on bikes...:(

Australian, don't own any, but support firearms ownership for personal self-defense

I'm from the US, and I have one rifle in .223/5.56mm. It is a Rock River Arms LAR-15 lower reciever on a Del-Ton 16" post ban upper (no bayonet lug, flash hider, or threaded barrel).

http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg

That would be an oxymoron, or a hypocrite.

Or they need it.

I have no doubt many people have firearms to remain safe, not because they want to.

And I dont have any weapon, but I would like to have a rifle. Even a .22 would do.

I own a single 12 guage Mossberg with a modified choke. I dont even have ammo for it. I dont think everyone should have a handgun, but I dont feel its my right to stop them. When I get my first pistol, It will be a revolver of the classic style-Black powder, lead shots, and firing caps. I have a few I have my eye on.

I don't personally own one, but I'm all for ownership. Right now I'm just busy being cheap as hell.

I own a single 12 guage Mossberg with a modified choke. I dont even have ammo for it. I dont think everyone should have a handgun, but I dont feel its my right to stop them. When I get my first pistol, It will be a revolver of the classic style-Black powder, lead shots, and firing caps. I have a few I have my eye on.

Nice. My Uncle and brother both have nice replica cap and ball Model 1860 Army Colts. Sweet little revolvers. ;)

Nice. My Uncle and brother both have nice replica cap and ball Model 1860 Army Colts. Sweet little revolvers. ;)

I've entered a couple of contests to try to win some. Never did.

as for trophy hunters: most give the meat to the guide, who sells it or gives it to friends and family.

That hasn't been my experience. Most trophy hunters I've encountered are nothing more than thieving poachers who shoot deer on private farm land and leave the rotting headless carcass for the farmer to deal with. They cause my boyfriend and his neighbors no end of trouble.

embarrassingly enough the husband owns a 357 magnum handgun. what a useless gun. i certainly dont want to USE a gun whose bullet can pass through the intruder and kill my son sleeping in the next room.

i need a shotgun. less need for good aim. less likely to kill anyone but the intruder.

it was on the news yesterday that 3 intruders have been shot and killed in albuquerque in the last month. none of the shooters have been charged.

No, and opposed to ownership in that I see very little positive for gun ownership. That dosn't mean I want them to be illegal, just that I wouldn't ever want one.

American.

2 30-06 rifles, bolt action, one is a beautifully personally customized piece that my father built. The other is a store bought, great weapon. I prefer my dads for pure feel, but the other is probably the "better" gun, so to speak.

12 Guage shotgun.

.22 bolt action, mainly for fun-shooting.

.345 Magnum. It's a beast.

One rusted out 6-shooter, that I doubt fires anymore.

THat's about it... so 6 in total, 5 workable.

Australian.

I'm opposed to private gun ownership for anything but hunting or pest control

I've never seen a need to own a gun for defence. I've never seen a handgun on anyone but a cop. I don't know anyone who has been robbed while they were in their home. And I've never been in any situation where I've wanted a gun.
Not that it matters, I wouldn't even know where to buy a firearm.

European.

I fail to see the need for gun ownership anywhere on this continent, except for sport or hunting purposes.

Australian.

I'm opposed to private gun ownership for anything but hunting or pest control

I've never seen a need to own a gun for defence. I've never seen a handgun on anyone but a cop. I don't know anyone who has been robbed while they were in their home. And I've never been in any situation where I've wanted a gun.
Not that it matters, I wouldn't even know where to buy a firearm.

European.

I fail to see the need for gun ownership anywhere on this continent, except for sport or hunting purposes.

US American

While I respect your right to your opinions, I will respectfuly disagree with you. I do know people that have been robbed (and worse) while they were home. I have been in situations where a gun would be handy, I didn't have a gun at the time and used other methods. As to need well the police can't be everywhere at once and I have seen it take 20 to 30 min. for them to arrive, so I (if needed)will cover my own as* thank you.

I target shoot for fun.
I to hunt for food, not trophy.
I protect myself and family as needed.

This clearly shows that US citizens are dumber than non-US citizens and that's why they are mostly for gun ownership despite all the deaths related to guns in that country while non-US citizens seem to be against it.

If it's not clear I'm a non-US citizen and I voted against.

US American

While I respect your right to your opinions, I will respectfuly disagree with you. I do know people that have been robbed (and worse) while they were home. I have been in situations where a gun would be handy, I didn't have a gun at the time and used other methods. As to need well the police can't be everywhere at once and I have seen it take 20 to 30 min. for them to arrive, so I (if needed)will cover my own as* thank you.

I target shoot for fun.
I to hunt for food, not trophy.
I protect myself and family as needed.

There's the difference between the US and many other countries. Armed robberies here are extremely rare, and burglaries while people are at home even rarer. The regular police here don't carry guns.
The only gun-related crime that keeps making headlines here are the gang shootings that become more and more common, up to several times a year now.

This clearly shows that US citizens are dumber than non-US citizens and that's why they are mostly for gun ownership despite all the deaths related to guns in that country while non-US citizens seem to be against it.

If it's not clear I'm a non-US citizen and I voted against.

Get off your high horse.
The situation in the US is in no way comparable to that in Europe. The US has a much higher number of guns in private ownership at the moment, and a vastly more aggressive and violent level of crime.
While I personally doubt that this particular problem can be solved by pouring out even more guns into the population, I don't fool myself into believing that it'll go away if guns are outlawed. That would be fighting the symptom, not the cause.

There's the difference between the US and many other countries. Armed robberies here are extremely rare, and burglaries while people are at home even rarer. The regular police here don't carry guns.
The only gun-related crime that keeps making headlines here are the gang shootings that become more and more common, up to several times a year now.

Police carry guns with rubber bullets here. That's a lot smarter than real bullets because you don't kill the person but you make him harmless.

I think about 25 people were shot to death two years ago in Sweden. I don't have stats for last year but it only shows that legalizing guns would be the stupidest thing you could do. And it will not happend, at least not until a war breakes out.

Get off your high horse.
The situation in the US is in no way comparable to that in Europe. The US has a much higher number of guns in private ownership at the moment, and a vastly more aggressive and violent level of crime.
While I personally doubt that this particular problem can be solved by pouring out even more guns into the population, I don't fool myself into believing that it'll go away if guns are outlawed. That would be fighting the symptom, not the cause.

It doesn't seem as they are that eager to fight neither the symptoms nor the causes there.

It doesn't seem as they are that eager to fight neither the symptoms nor the causes there.

It's their country, they can do what they want. Wouldn't you agree?

It's their country, they can do what they want. Wouldn't you agree?

Uhhh, have I said they can't? I've just expressed my opinion of how stupid gun ownership is and if they want to have it they can, luckely I don't live there.

Just to add more to the tumult here..

I live in Australia and I'm on the verge of getting my gun-liscence. I'm thinking of buying a few WWII rifles here, mostly for their historical value.

Anyways, I believe that this undertone of paranioa and fear that surrounds gun ownership (here in Oz, at least) does not always have to be so. It is possible to be both a gun-owner and at the same time, be conscious and obedient to the law. We aint always gun-toting freaks in civilian guise.

That said, guns in general are both quite beneficial and pretty cool, but don't have to be consumed by a larger group of people than there already is in the USA.

US Citizen
1 authentic WWII-era Japanese Type 99 Rifle

saving it for the commies :sniper:

I have a pistol permit but I don't own a gun.

American

A Registered 9mm Pistol / For Protection

Oh my god!!!!

Phoenix Militia - you are a legend!!

Where'd you get the Type 99? You got style in my eyes
I myself was thinking of getting on of those Type 38's - How much was your Type 99???

It was handed down to me from my grandfather who recovered it during the closing days of the war.

Do gun smilies count? :D

This clearly shows that US citizens are dumber than non-US citizens and that's why they are mostly for gun ownership despite all the deaths related to guns in that country while non-US citizens seem to be against it.

Really? US Citizens are dumb? Then I guess I earned a degree in Computer Systems based soley upon my good looks, and not on my intelligence. :rolleyes: Banning firearms is not the solution, because the criminals won't turn theirs in with everyone else. The solution to firearms crime is to impose and enforce tougher sentences for firearms related crime.


If it's not clear I'm a non-US citizen and ....

That is something this US citizen is greatful for. :D

Really? US Citizens are dumb? Then I guess I earned a degree in Computer Systems based soley upon my good looks, and not on my intelligence. :rolleyes: Banning firearms is not the solution, because the criminals won't turn theirs in with everyone else. The solution to firearms crime is to impose and enforce tougher sentences for firearms related crime.


That might be part of the solution, but on it's own it won't work. Tough sentences are wasted if the criminals are not caught.
In my humble opinion the first step would be to optimise police forces both for crime prevention and for investigation.

Police carry guns with rubber bullets here. That's a lot smarter than real bullets because you don't kill the person but you make him harmless.

Rubber bullets are less lethal, but they CAN still kill a person, depending on circumstances.

I think about 25 people were shot to death two years ago in Sweden. I don't have stats for last year but it only shows that legalizing guns would be the stupidest thing you could do. And it will not happend, at least not until a war breakes out.

Then explain why Norway, which has more firearms than any other country in Western Europe, has a lower murder rate than any country in Western Europe. It isn't the firearms that are the problem, it's the culture and people (after all, firearms are inanimate objects that can do nothing until someone uses them).

That might be part of the solution, but on it's own it won't work. Tough sentences are wasted if the criminals are not caught.
In my humble opinion the first step would be to optimise police forces both for crime prevention and for investigation.

Ah, good point. :)

Then explain why Norway, which has more firearms than any other country in Western Europe, has a lower murder rate than any country in Western Europe. It isn't the firearms that are the problem, it's the culture and people (after all, firearms are inanimate objects that can do nothing until someone uses them).

Norway has more guns than Switzerland? Get your numbers straight.

Really? US Citizens are dumb? Then I guess I earned a degree in Computer Systems based soley upon my good looks, and not on my intelligence. :rolleyes: Banning firearms is not the solution, because the criminals won't turn theirs in with everyone else. The solution to firearms crime is to impose and enforce tougher sentences for firearms related crime.


Banning guns itself wouldn't probably do much in a country where it's that easy to get access to guns but there needs to be moore restrictive gun laws and as you said, harder punishments. When you've had screwed up gun laws for so many years it's hard to fix it in one day.

Anyways, would you legalize guns in a country where they are forbidden and crime rate's are low?

=That is something this US citizen is greatful for. :D

I hope so...

Ah, good point. :)

I suspect (and that's nothing but my own impression, I could be dead wrong there) that most European countries opt for crime prevention by allowing police a good presence in public life and always being within easy reach (there's one police station about 2 mintues from my house, and another one about 10 minutes in the other direction).
The USA, on the other hand, seems to opt for the deterring effect of harsh punishment, and the additional possible threat of potentially armed "victims".

Anyways, would you legalize guns in a country where they are forbidden and crime rate's are low?

Interesting question. You should open a new thread for that, it might be a very good discussion.

Rubber bullets are less lethal, but they CAN still kill a person, depending on circumstances.



Then explain why Norway, which has more firearms than any other country in Western Europe, has a lower murder rate than any country in Western Europe. It isn't the firearms that are the problem, it's the culture and people (after all, firearms are inanimate objects that can do nothing until someone uses them).

They can kill a person but they probably won't and police only opens fire in really extreme situations(mostly anyways.)

Do you have a source that shows that Norway has more firearms than any other country in Europe? And only because it has more firearms it doesn't have to mean that they have liberal gun laws.

Otherwise I can tell you that Norway's probably the most socially progressive nation in Europe with it's social security and welfare.

American. I have a pistol for self-protection. There's people around here who don't like me much and I've been attacked before.

I'm an American. I own a Bushmaster AR-15 Carbine, post-pan, given to me by my father, and a single shot, level action, shotgun from my uncle. When on my own, I'm looking forward to getting a .45 pistol of some kind (1911 or Glock 21) and trading in my shotgun for a pump-action.

I am a free American citizen. There are criminals and would-be tyrants who think themselves fit to rule me and mine for their profit, but I and mine will not be made subjects or slaves. Therefore, I choose to exercise my G-d-given right to keep and bear arms in the defense of life, liberty, and property.

There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. (Daniel Webster)

The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. (Andrew Fletcher, Scottish parliamentarian)

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. (Patrick Henry)

You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe. (John Adams)

I suspect (and that's nothing but my own impression, I could be dead wrong there) that most European countries opt for crime prevention by allowing police a good presence in public life and always being within easy reach (there's one police station about 2 mintues from my house, and another one about 10 minutes in the other direction).
The USA, on the other hand, seems to opt for the deterring effect of harsh punishment, and the additional possible threat of potentially armed "victims".

I think that's the problem here in America. The police aren't so accessible here. Like I said earlier, there are no cops in my town after midnight. There's also no cops on Tuesdays, after 5pm on Mondays or before 4p on Wednesdays. My home was broken into and the cops didn't come for three days. It's also common knowledge in this area that the cops will not investigate property theft, they only come and take a report for your insurance.

Americans are also big on the right to privacy thing. People get outraged at the mere mention of public surveilance. (Bush and his Patriot Act do nothing to quell paranoia, incedentally).

American

1 30.6 rifle
2 .22 rifles
1 .45 pistol

Love to shoot em all the time.


Oh, did I mention I'm a 14 yr old girl?

When the Police get teleporters then I'll feel safe without a gun.

I own 2 guns. A 9mm pistol and a .38spl revolver.

US Citizen, and I have a "coouple" of them:
2 M-1 Garands 30.06 one is mine,the other my wife
1 SLRII 7.62 x 39 mm AK type clone
1 AR-180B 5.56 mm
1 AR-15 5.56 mm
1 SKS 7.62 x 39 mm Russian manufacture
1 FN-49 8 mm Egyptian issue, with Egyptian markings
1 M-1 Carbine
1 Franchi LAW-12 semi auto shotgun
1 Beretta 12 semi auto shotgun, PD style
1 Colt Series 80 .45 pistol
1 Glock 21 .45 pistol
1 Glock 17 9 mm pistol (my last pd issue weapon)
1 Smith Wesson model 64 .38 cal revolver (my first pd issue weapon)
1 Walther P-38 9 mm (my first pd off dut weapon)
1 Walther PPK .380 pistol (wife carry)
1 Ruger Vaquero .357 revolver (wife)
1 Federal Ordnance .45 semi auto

With the exception of my wife's and mine carry pistols, they stay locked in a gun safe. I also keep a "few" loaded magazines here and there, but the wife and I are the only ones that have access to the gun safe. I have 3 boys, but we teach them about firearm safety, just like we teach them not to use the stove and the power tools in the house unless the wife or I are with them.

Just a few of the things I have picked up over the last 20 years. Yes, I carry a concealed hand gun for protection, and I hunt. I also do sports shooting with the rifles and handguns.

To some persons, I would be classified as a whacko, since I strongly support individual libertys and the right to carry arms for law abiding citizens. But when those same persons find that I have been involved in Emergency Services for the last 27 years, then I am not a nut case, but a trained professional. Lets just say that I shoot more in a year to keep my skills and marksmanship than the average police officer in the US does.

Safety starts with you. Responsibility for teaching the kids also starts with the parents.

Stay safe out there.

Vic

One Knights Armament Corporation SR-25 w/Leupold M3 10x scope with mil-dot reticle (308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO)

One Rock River Arms Pro-Series Elite (5.56mm NATO)

One Browning Hi-Power 9mm pistol (9mm NATO)

One Marlin 1895 Guide Gun in 45-70

Three CZ 452 rifles (one trainer model, two regular models), each with Swarovski 10x scope, each in .22 LR

I dont think they should be sold at places like Walmart, they shouldnt be openly available. Maybe they could be sold under tight regulations for hunting and people could be allowed to keep guns as antiques but buying guns for protection /just to have around is a bit ludicrous, the king of England is not going to attack anyone, nor will "the crazy black man". If guns were banned then you would have a huge decrease in murders. Thing would be safer without them for everyone. Incidentally Im not American.

I dont think they should be sold at places like Walmart, they shouldnt be openly available. Maybe they could be sold under tight regulations for hunting and people could be allowed to keep guns as antiques but buying guns for protection /just to have around is a bit ludicrous, the king of England is not going to attack anyone, nor will "the crazy black man". If guns were banned then you would have a huge decrease in murders. Thing would be safer without them for everyone. Incidentally Im not American.

There's already been a huge decrease in murders, despite the fact that the number of guns has gone up. And while it would decrease murders (theoretically 65 percent), it wouldn't reduce violent crime much (91 percent of US violent crime is committed without any firearm at all).

What works for one country, doesn't work for another - that's the point.

I dont think they should be sold at places like Walmart, they shouldnt be openly available. Maybe they could be sold under tight regulations for hunting and people could be allowed to keep guns as antiques but buying guns for protection /just to have around is a bit ludicrous, the king of England is not going to attack anyone, nor will "the crazy black man". If guns were banned then you would have a huge decrease in murders. Thing would be safer without them for everyone. Incidentally Im not American.

So define "openly available". Are you saying that Walmart doesn't have to follow the same federal laws as everywhere else to sell firearms? Why do you assume that firearm owners are automatically racist? Can you show evidence that banning firearms leads to a "huge decrease in murders"? Proof of this?

So define "openly available". Are you saying that Walmart doesn't have to follow the same federal laws as everywhere else to sell firearms? Why do you assume that firearm owners are automatically racist? Can you show evidence that banning firearms leads to a "huge decrease in murders"? Proof of this?

It's a popular myth that somehow, the only people who own firearms are racist rednecks.

So define "openly available". Are you saying that Walmart doesn't have to follow the same federal laws as everywhere else to sell firearms? Why do you assume that firearm owners are automatically racist? Can you show evidence that banning firearms leads to a "huge decrease in murders"? Proof of this?

Im saying guns shouldnt be available to be picked up at shopping malls, theyre lethal weapons, youre just opening up to wackos getting them. You should have to go through a rigorous bureaucratic process before you even get to own a hunting rifle, that should be the only type of gun available, for hunting obviously. I would say a lot of americans have guns because they are afraid of being attacked, the big scary black man is something of a fixture in American media newsreports of crime, or was to any extent within recent memory. In theory people would have less access to weapons and so murder rates would go down, even accidental murders through gun ownership.

There's already been a huge decrease in murders, despite the fact that the number of guns has gone up. And while it would decrease murders (theoretically 65 percent), it wouldn't reduce violent crime much (91 percent of US violent crime is committed without any firearm at all).

What works for one country, doesn't work for another - that's the point.

I think the intention behind banning guns-to reduce murder may have a knock on effect of creating an environment less conduscive towards violence/violent crime. Surely its a positive step to put sharp restrictions on instruments of death

Im saying guns shouldnt be available to be picked up at shopping malls, theyre lethal weapons, youre just opening up to wackos getting them. You should have to go through a rigorous bureaucratic process before you even get to own a hunting rifle, that should be the only type of gun available, for hunting obviously. I would say a lot of americans have guns because they are afraid of being attacked, the big scary black man is something of a fixture in American media newsreports of crime, or was to any extent within recent memory. In theory people would have less access to weapons and so murder rates would go down, even accidental murders through gun ownership.

So since you haven't answered any of my questions, let's try this again.

Are you saying that stores such as Walmart do not have to go through the same requirements as any other federal firearms license dealer?

I really don't care what you think I should be "allowed" to own.

You're apparently basing your belief of firearm ownership on what you see on TV. That's accuracy right there. :rolleyes:

You're "theory" is faulty. Murder rates haven't been dependent on private ownership. Otherwise you would have seen a massive increase during the 90's. It decreased. Accidental deaths by firearms also decreased.

I think the intention behind banning guns-to reduce murder may have a knock on effect of creating an environment less conduscive towards violence/violent crime. Surely its a positive step to put sharp restrictions on instruments of death

In your opinion. Then reality steps in.

My firearms must be faulty. Noone has ever died from them.

Would love to, but they're expensive.

So since you haven't answered any of my questions, let's try this again.

Are you saying that stores such as Walmart do not have to go through the same requirements as any other federal firearms license dealer?

I really don't care what you think I should be "allowed" to own.

You're apparently basing your belief of firearm ownership on what you see on TV. That's accuracy right there. :rolleyes:

You're "theory" is faulty. Murder rates haven't been dependent on private ownership. Otherwise you would have seen a massive increase during the 90's. It decreased. Accidental deaths by firearms also decreased.

Television/media informs society and vice versa. A lot of americans live in fear, its always the bogieman of terrorism/communism/killer bees from mexico, whatever the government and media want to invent next to maintain control. Wheres your evidence for murder rates not being dependent on private gun ownership? Even if there is no correlation, banning guns would certainly prevent future tragedies which are going to be made possible by guns being widely available. E.g. A future Columbine, a future woops I shot my girlfriend incident etc.

Im saying guns shouldnt be available to be picked up at shopping malls, theyre lethal weapons, youre jus st opening up to wackos getting them. You should have to go through a rigorous bureaucratic process before you even get to own a hunting rifle, that should be the only type of gun available, for hunting obviously. I would say a lot of americans have guns because they are afraid of being attacked, the big scary black man is something of a fixture in American media newsreports of crime, or was to any extent within recent memory. In theory people would have less access to weapons and so murder rates would go down, even accidental murders through gun ownership.


The gun owners I know have them because they like to hunt and target shoot. Not because they're afraid of being attacked. But then, I do live in a small town with very, very little crime.

I don't think that it's really guns that is the problem in the US, it's more the relative poverty rate and the huge gap between the rich and poor. If you look at Finland and Switzerland where gun ownership is high they have low crime rates. Incidentally, they also have good social welfare systems.

:sniper: i probably own enough to take over my county. how many is to many? i don`t know. should everyone have them,no. they same people who shouldn`t breed shouldn`t own firearms. why should i? to carry on the legacy my ancestors started when THEY took up arms against THEIR government 230 some odd years ago and again some 80 years after that. in the american bill of rights,the 2nd amendment is the one that makes the other 9 have any validity.:mp5: "From my cold,dead hands!":upyours:

Television/media informs society and vice versa. A lot of americans live in fear, its always the bogieman of terrorism/communism/killer bees from mexico, whatever the government and media want to invent next to maintain control. Wheres your evidence for murder rates not being dependent on private gun ownership? Even if there is no correlation, banning guns would certainly prevent future tragedies which are going to be made possible by guns being widely available. E.g. A future Columbine, a future woops I shot my girlfriend incident etc.

So basically you're making stuff up off of what you see on TV. Gotcha.

Why don't you go visit the FBI website and look at murder rates. I've asked you if stores don't have to follow federal guidelines. You've refused to answer. I've asked you why you assume firearm owners are racist. You answer because you've seen it on TV.

You seem to be the one inventing fears for people to live by. Not the firearm owners.

The gun owners I know have them because they like to hunt and target shoot. Not because they're afraid of being attacked. But then, I do live in a small town with very, very little crime.

I don't think that it's really guns that is the problem in the US, it's more the relative poverty rate and the huge gap between the rich and poor. If you look at Finland and Switzerland where gun ownership is high they have low crime rates. Incidentally, they also have good social welfare systems.

But making stereotypes and innacurate statements is much more fun.

Here in the US, there are more deaths caused by drunk drivers, than by accidental and criminal use of firearms. If we are really serious about saving "even one life is worth it", then lets ban all cars.

After all, why would someone want a firearm with a 30 round magazine?
Why would someone want a car that tops at 160 MPH, when the speed limit is 65 MPH?

. . . E.g. A future Columbine, a future woops I shot my girlfriend incident etc

*cough*

The Columbine kids were just that, kids, who aren't allowed to own firearms. In addition, they used automatic weapons, which are incredibly hard to get. In short, they were minors in possession of weapons that they shouldn't have had in the first place.

And basic safety knowledge is the requirement when using any tool. Someone who disregards said rules deserves whatever he or she gets.

*cough*

The Columbine kids were just that, kids, who aren't allowed to own firearms. In addition, they used automatic weapons, which are incredibly hard to get. In short, they were minors in possession of weapons that they shouldn't have had in the first place.

And basic safety knowledge is the requirement when using any tool. Someone who disregards said rules deserves whatever he or she gets.

Not only were the weapons illegal, they stole them!!! And the bombs that they made were also illegal to manufacture!!! So, since they broke the law, lets punish the law abiding citizen.

Not only were the weapons illegal, they stole them!!! And the bombs that they made were also illegal to manufacture!!! So, since they broke the law, lets punish the law abiding citizen.

So Columbine was a bad example. Heres a good one. In the early nineties in the UK a lunatic went on the rampage in a primary school in Dunblanne, Scotland, killing several young children before turning the gun on himself. All this was done with legally owned firearms.

What does this tell us?

1 - That there needs to be SOME restrictions on gun ownership. Such a lethal tool needs to be kept out of the hands of certain people.

2 - A complete ban is ridiculous knee jerk reaction. pJust because this man went off the deep end doesn't mean ALL gun owners will.

So Columbine was a bad example. Heres a good one. In the early nineties in the UK a lunatic went on the rampage in a primary school in Dunblanne, Scotland, killing several young children before turning the gun on himself. All this was done with legally owned firearms.

What does this tell us?

1 - That there needs to be SOME restrictions on gun ownership. Such a lethal tool needs to be kept out of the hands of certain people.

2 - A complete ban is ridiculous knee jerk reaction. pJust because this man went off the deep end doesn't mean ALL gun owners will.

I know this isn't going to go over well, but wouldn't it have been nice if one or more of the teachers were armed and shot him dead before he could start shooting the kids?

The Anti-Americans in this forum outnumber pro-Americans. Gun ownership is a traditional American value. We used 'em to secure independence, and achieve our manifest destiny. Everyday homeowners, pedestrians, and shopkeeps save themselves from serious injury or death at the hands of the thugs (who probably vote democrat) that roam about the country.

Liberal anti American values folks hate the idea of self relaince. They want the state to protect us from the badguy breaking into our homes. Well let me tell you, the police response time is longer than it will take for a burglar or murderer to finish his evil business. They hate any effort for people to take care of themselves. That is why they hate guns, love welfare, hate the rich but want to give people incentives to not work by giving out freebies to families who dont work that working families dont get. I hate them all so much. I wish that all the people like this could move out of our Republic and we could import all the people who think like true Americans. America is an idea.

I would also bet that most of the murdered folks are people that had it coming to them. I think that the innocent bystander is truly a minority in the murdered population. So if guns help our thugs to kill each other, why is this so bad. Heck even in Columbine the kids that got wasted pretty much deserved it for being bullies.

Yay!! Gun thread!!

My list:

1. 91/30 mosin nagant (I keep it in my room too)
2. 1940 M1 .30 carbine (family heirloom)
3. .306 bolt action remington
4. Chinese AK-47
5. .22 revolver
6. .22 century old single-shot rifle
7. 12 gauge shotgun, side by side
8. 20 guage shotgun, over and under
9. a 410 that's been missing for a while
10. This wierd .32 rifle with a scope that I've never fired before

Of all those, only the nagant is really mine. The rest are my dad's are were given to my dad.

Of all those, only the nagant is really mine. The rest are my dad's are were given to my dad.
Where did you get the Nagant from, and how old is it? (same question really)

Where did you get the Nagant from, and how old is it? (same question really)

I got it at a gun show for just $120. The stamp says 1930 so 76 years old.

Norway has more guns than Switzerland? Get your numbers straight.

I took that statement from here: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1621

In this paragraph: "Anti-gun advocates never mention these facts. Nor do they mention all the European nations with high gun ownership rates but very low murder. Norway, with the highest gun ownership rate in Western Europe, has the lowest murder rate—far below England's. The only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia): 30 percent higher than the U.S. and ten times that of gun-dense Norway. Holland, with Western Europe's lowest rate of gun ownership, has a 50 percent higher murder rate than Norway. Greece has much higher gun ownership than the Czech Republic but much less murder. Finland has 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia but much lower murder rates."

I've been looking for actual numbers for firearms in Norway, but I haven't been able to find them.

I would also bet that most of the murdered folks are people that had it coming to them. I think that the innocent bystander is truly a minority in the murdered population. So if guns help our thugs to kill each other, why is this so bad. Heck even in Columbine the kids that got wasted pretty much deserved it for being bullies.

get your facts right. they were the ones being bullied.

Anyways, would you legalize guns in a country where they are forbidden and crime rate's are low?

If that's what the majority of that country's citizens wanted, then yes.

I took that statement from here: http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1621

In this paragraph: "Anti-gun advocates never mention these facts. Nor do they mention all the European nations with high gun ownership rates but very low murder. Norway, with the highest gun ownership rate in Western Europe, has the lowest murder rate—far below England's. The only European nation that bans all guns, Luxembourg, has the highest murder rate (except for Russia): 30 percent higher than the U.S. and ten times that of gun-dense Norway. Holland, with Western Europe's lowest rate of gun ownership, has a 50 percent higher murder rate than Norway. Greece has much higher gun ownership than the Czech Republic but much less murder. Finland has 14 times more gun ownership than neighboring Estonia but much lower murder rates."

I've been looking for actual numbers for firearms in Norway, but I haven't been able to find them.
Well, I'd bet Finland has more guns per capita than any other European country. I've been told It's 3rd in the world in guns per capita - USA and Yemen leading this fine statistic. My friends in Finland tell me the weapon of choice to kill somebody is a knife... the weapon of choice to top oneself off is a gun (shotgun). Odd. But it is these kind of oddities that distort the guns per country/gun crime statistics. Maybe there's this strange Shogun honour thing in Finland prohibiting shootings. (maybe not)

I've been looking for actual numbers for firearms in Norway, but I haven't been able to find them.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gov/morrison2.html#NOR

35% of the population, bringing the number to roughly just above 1.5 million. Switzerland, as quoted in the same article, has 2 million.
I think the important difference is not the number of guns as such, but the regulations surrounding guns. While Switzerland is the country with the highest number of guns per captia, it's also the country with the strictest gun laws.

US Citizen, and I have a "coouple" of them:
2 M-1 Garands 30.06 one is mine,the other my wife
1 SLRII 7.62 x 39 mm AK type clone
1 AR-180B 5.56 mm
1 AR-15 5.56 mm
1 SKS 7.62 x 39 mm Russian manufacture
1 FN-49 8 mm Egyptian issue, with Egyptian markings
1 M-1 Carbine
1 Franchi LAW-12 semi auto shotgun
1 Beretta 12 semi auto shotgun, PD style
1 Colt Series 80 .45 pistol
1 Glock 21 .45 pistol
1 Glock 17 9 mm pistol (my last pd issue weapon)
1 Smith Wesson model 64 .38 cal revolver (my first pd issue weapon)
1 Walther P-38 9 mm (my first pd off dut weapon)
1 Walther PPK .380 pistol (wife carry)
1 Ruger Vaquero .357 revolver (wife)
1 Federal Ordnance .45 semi auto

With the exception of my wife's and mine carry pistols, they stay locked in a gun safe. I also keep a "few" loaded magazines here and there, but the wife and I are the only ones that have access to the gun safe. I have 3 boys, but we teach them about firearm safety, just like we teach them not to use the stove and the power tools in the house unless the wife or I are with them.

Just a few of the things I have picked up over the last 20 years. Yes, I carry a concealed hand gun for protection, and I hunt. I also do sports shooting with the rifles and handguns.

To some persons, I would be classified as a whacko, since I strongly support individual libertys and the right to carry arms for law abiding citizens. But when those same persons find that I have been involved in Emergency Services for the last 27 years, then I am not a nut case, but a trained professional. Lets just say that I shoot more in a year to keep my skills and marksmanship than the average police officer in the US does.

Safety starts with you. Responsibility for teaching the kids also starts with the parents.

Stay safe out there.

Vic


Yay!! Gun thread!!

My list:

1. 91/30 mosin nagant (I keep it in my room too)
2. 1940 M1 .30 carbine (family heirloom)
3. .306 bolt action remington
4. Chinese AK-47
5. .22 revolver
6. .22 century old single-shot rifle
7. 12 gauge shotgun, side by side
8. 20 guage shotgun, over and under
9. a 410 that's been missing for a while
10. This wierd .32 rifle with a scope that I've never fired before

Of all those, only the nagant is really mine. The rest are my dad's are were given to my dad.


:eek:

Alright, now I'm envious of both of you. Either of you looking to adopt a 33 year old? :D

American, own more than 20.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gov/morrison2.html#NOR

35% of the population, bringing the number to roughly just above 1.5 million. Switzerland, as quoted in the same article, has 2 million.
I think the important difference is not the number of guns as such, but the regulations surrounding guns. While Switzerland is the country with the highest number of guns per captia, it's also the country with the strictest gun laws.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Finland

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

*lol
Never trust a statistic that you didn't forge yourself. ;)
I guess if we keep on searching, we'll find a page quoting Austria as having over 3 million guns, and then maybe even Portugal having 5 million.

http://teapot.usask.ca/cdn-firearms/Gov/morrison2.html#NOR

35% of the population, bringing the number to roughly just above 1.5 million. Switzerland, as quoted in the same article, has 2 million.
I think the important difference is not the number of guns as such, but the regulations surrounding guns. While Switzerland is the country with the highest number of guns per captia, it's also the country with the strictest gun laws.

It also has state sponsored/subsidized ammuntion, competitions (including youth), and training.

The article you linked stated that Swiss laws are "permissive" when comparing them to Canada.

I got it at a gun show for just $120. The stamp says 1930 so 76 years old.


You're a tougher man than I am because I couldn't bear shooting a Mosin for long. The punishing recoil of the 7.62x54 would kill me.

Let's see...

1 Ak (another half done)
1 SKS
1 M1
1 AR15
1 Shotgun (870)
and a few pellet guns mainly for squirrel and rabbit control.

I'm posting pics.

*lol
Never trust a statistic that you didn't forge yourself. ;)
I guess if we keep on searching, we'll find a page quoting Austria as having over 3 million guns, and then maybe even Portugal having 5 million.

America's got around 240 million or so :p

You're a tougher man than I am because I couldn't bear shooting a Mosin for long. The punishing recoil of the 7.62x54 would kill me.

Let's see...

1 Ak (another half done)
1 SKS
1 M1
1 AR15
1 Shotgun (870)
and a few pellet guns mainly for squirrel and rabbit control.

I'm posting pics.

You build a tolerance. I regularly fire the Mauser 8mm (7.92x57).

You build a tolerance. I regularly fire the Mauser 8mm (7.92x57).

Pics of said Mauser?

Pics of said Mauser?

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/RoyAttebury03.jpg



http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/Woods.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/dscf0004.jpg

*lol
Never trust a statistic that you didn't forge yourself. ;)
I guess if we keep on searching, we'll find a page quoting Austria as having over 3 million guns, and then maybe even Portugal having 5 million.Yeh.
I don't know what is acceptable (http://www.answers.com/topic/gun-politics-in-finland)

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/RoyAttebury03.jpg



http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/Woods.jpg

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a186/kecibukia/Shooting/dscf0004.jpg

Thanks. :D

I know I've seen those pics before. Did you post them here previousl, or do you belong to AR15.com?

Thanks. :D

I know I've seen those pics before. Did you post them here previousl, or do you belong to AR15.com?

I've posted them previously. I've been here awhile. I don't go to ar15 often. Too many other places to frequent.

I'm American, and I don't own a gun (well, I'm just shy of 15, but still, I wouldn't if I could) and neither, as far as I know, does anyone in my family. I'm absolutely opposed to gun ownership and think they should be, at the least, FAR more strictly regulated.

You're a tougher man than I am because I couldn't bear shooting a Mosin for long. The punishing recoil of the 7.62x54 would kill me.

Uh... hehe... Well...

Ok, after shooting like 18 rounds through that sucker I decided to buy a recoil pad. I'll see how well it works tomorrow.

(OOC: normally I'd discourage political RPs.....:OOC)
(American)
Yes my family own guns and I'm a member of the NRA. In other words I support gun ownership passionately. All of my family's firearms are all legally bought, and most of them have sound suppressors on them, also legally bought via a Class 3 license. Of our "inventory" so to speak are-

Armalite AR10A2 Carbine
Armalite AR10A4 (Sniper set up)
Accuracy International AW .308 (with fully suppressed "covert" barrel)
Bushmaster Carbon 15
Original Winchester M1 Carbine
Modified Winchester .308
Benneli M1 Shotgun w/ pistol grip
FN PS90 w/ short barrel and accessories (SBR license)
Colt AR-9mm. w/Gemtech Talon system (SBR license)
Sig 226 9mm
HK USP.45
Glock 34
Kimber 1911A1
Walther P22
Walther P99
FN 57
Smith & Wesson .460 Revolver

(Again all suppressors, shortbarreled rifles etc. are all legally owned via a class 3 license and there's definately more where these ^^ came from....)

For the sake of argument, for those opposed to owning fire arms, what reasons are you opposed? Is it so people can't shoot other people?
Yes. Banning firearms means that anyone caught in the possession of a firearm need not even have committed a crime (that they can be proven and convicted for) in order to be discovered as the criminal they are.

In what way are they criminals? Owning a firearm is a legal practice in the US.....

In what way are they criminals? Owning a firearm is a legal practice in the US.....

Some guns are considered more "evil" than other.

For example, an AR15.

"More thrusts per squeeze!"


"Armor piercing bullets that can pierce a police officer's vest!"


"That can't be used for hunting!"

And some guns just make liberals crap their pants.

Example, the AK47. A vortex of evil so powerful it is capable of......

I am an American, I own probably6-8 weapons . In my family everyone is educated in the use of firearms as that is how to promote safety of firearms. After that it is your choice to own them.....which many in my family do both male and female, for hunting as well as target shooting, for sport as well as competition.

Depending on the direction one leans if they look hard enough they can find facts supporting their point of view.... those facts depend on who paid for them to be found. A company is not going to offend the person paying them to write a report.

I am not sure on this i heard long ago that one of the reasons for such a low crime rate in Switzerland is atributed to the high number of people in the Swiss military reserves and the fact that they are required to keep their weapons in their home in case they are called out? if I were a criminal I would not want to break into the home of a known armed soldier....so it makes sense to me. But can anyone tell me yes or no on this?

I do have a stick with a plastic pointy rock on it would that count?
How can it be plastic, yet also a rock?

This clearly shows that US citizens are dumber than non-US citizens....

If it's not clear I'm a non-US citizen and I voted against.
I voted the same way as you, but I only speak my opinion as it relates to my own country. It's not my place to tell Americans what to do, and I am really too uninformed on this issue to make any judgements.

US Citizen, and I have a "coouple" of them:

One Knights Armament Corporation SR-25 w/Leupold M3 10x scope with mil-dot reticle (308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO)

One Rock River Arms Pro-Series Elite (5.56mm NATO)

One Browning Hi-Power 9mm pistol (9mm NATO)

One Marlin 1895 Guide Gun in 45-70

Three CZ 452 rifles (one trainer model, two regular models), each with Swarovski 10x scope, each in .22 LR
After that guy you're decidedly unimpressive, Kimchi.

Some guns are considered more "evil" than other.

For example, an AR15.

"More thrusts per squeeze!"

"Armor piercing bullets that can pierce a police officer's vest!"

"That can't be used for hunting!"

And some guns just make liberals crap their pants.

Example, the AK47. A vortex of evil so powerful it is capable of......
In fairness, those are somewhat rational reasons.

Unless you're the type that sees nothing wrong with killing people.

In what way are they criminals? Owning a firearm is a legal practice in the US.....
I'm not in the US. I only speak for my country.

I am a citizen in the United States.

We have the right of self defense here. We can protect ourselves from not only criminals but tyrants also.

The rest of the world (for the most part) seem to be happy as as "subjects" being ruled over by bureaucrats.

I am saddened to see what has become of the Britts and Aussies. Another generation or two and they might as well be French.

Hope you guys like Sharia (http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=Sharia&gwp=16).

In fairness, those are somewhat rational reasons.

Unless you're the type that sees nothing wrong with killing people.


I'm not in the US. I only speak for my country.

And yet all those "reasons" are BS.

5.7x28mm bullpup carbine
5.7x28 pistol
[my mouse guns]
.223 rugar mini 14
2 9mm pistols
M-1 Garand
Barrett .416 [in case the deer start wearing body armor]

Yeah, I expected there to be a lot of gunslingers on NS. Since half of us are probably certain we're going to need it when the cops come to take the guns away or bust them for drugs or search them without a warrant or inject a tracking chip into their bloodstream.

In fairness, those are somewhat rational reasons.

Unless you're the type that sees nothing wrong with killing people


I'm not in the US. I only speak for my country.

It's the primary reason I own guns-to protect myself, my property, and my family and friends. Also handy for national defense, etc. I see no problem with killing bad people. Burglars. Murderers. Rapists, etc.

And no, those are all bogus reasons.

"More thrusts per squeeze"

How exactly do you thrust a trigger? A gun control BS argument

"Can't be used for hunting..."

Nonsense. The AR works great on small deer and hogs. The AK works just as good also.

"Will penetrate a police officer's vest..."

DUM DA DUM! Any normal centerfire rifle caliber WILL pierce a police officers vest if they don't have plates. That means a 30-30, the most common deer rifle in America will pierce a vest. So will a 30-06. So will a .223. So will a 7.62x39. So will a 243. A previous poster posted pictures of his mauser, which is 8mm mag, will make swiss cheese of ANY police officer's vest. 7.62x54R, the mosin Nagant round will too.

"Only good for killing people..."

And you want the police to only have them? Not good enough....

5.7x28mm bullpup carbine
5.7x28 pistol
[my mouse guns]
.223 rugar mini 14
2 9mm pistols
M-1 Garand
Barrett .416 [in case the deer start wearing body armor]

You have exspensive tastes.

The 5.7x28 is the caliber that the VPC and NYC police cheif were moaning and whining about.

It's the primary reason I own guns-to protect myself, my property, and my family and friends. Also handy for national defense, etc. I see no problem with killing bad people. Burglars. Murderers. Rapists, etc.
Unfortunately, you have no right to decide who is "bad" enough to deserve death out of your gun's barrel.

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Matthew 6:15 "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

If you're an atheist this sort of thing will probably make you want to aim your weapons at me, but this is the truth!

Reject revenge.

I have a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22 pistol.
I'm in favor of ownership being legal and agree with my country's current laws about firearms. I have taken safety classes and my firearms are legally obtained.

Unfortunately, you have no right to decide who is "bad" enough to deserve death out of your gun's barrel.

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Matthew 6:15 "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

If you're an atheist this sort of thing will probably make you want to aim your weapons at me, but this is the truth!

Reject revenge.

Fortunately He has every right to decide......for God gave people free will after adam and eve ate of the tree of life. The choices he makes are his own and at the end of eternity God shall bring him for judgement.....and then god shall decide if he was wrong or right. And if you pay attention the bible is full of people who fought to defend their famlies, friends and countries from those who were evil and intended to do harm to them.

Unfortunately, you have no right to decide who is "bad" enough to deserve death out of your gun's barrel.

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Matthew 6:15 "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

If you're an atheist this sort of thing will probably make you want to aim your weapons at me, but this is the truth!

Reject revenge.

I have every right to determine someone bad if they attempt to harm me. Try and murder my girlfriend? I won't stand for it (Only a few more months and I can legaly CCW). Try to harm my parents? I will kill the thug. I WILL forgive the person who attacks me, but I WILL NOT let them carry out their evil deeds. You mistake forgiveness with self preservation.

Christ never intended, meant, or in any way or form that defending one's self or family is revenge. Never. The first qoute you gave above is a referance to spirituality. The meek, not the proud of boastful pharisee or saducee, shall inherit the earth.

The second qoute doesn't even have to do with the topic. It's about forgiveness. The person who shoot an attacker shouldn't have to ask for forgiveness for doing it. Wrong. What did the homeowner do to deserve it? It is the dastardly burglar who invaded the home who should be asking for forgiveness, not the homeowner.


Is it revenge to protect myself? No. If you equate that then that's really too bad. I find it simply amazing that there are adults in this country with no sense of self-preservation.

FYI, I do abhor violence. Really and truely, I do. But I am rather protective , err, (as you say it) revengeful of my family and friends.

And yet all those "reasons" are BS.

Keibukia,


Are you on ARFCOM?

Yeah, I expected there to be a lot of gunslingers on NS. Since half of us are probably certain we're going to need it when the cops come to take the guns away or bust them for drugs or search them without a warrant or inject a tracking chip into their bloodstream.

I guess if there are a lot of US in NS, yes, there will be a lot of "gunslingers" here. Of course, the history of Europe has been one mostly of Kingdoms and subjects, in which the ruler remembers the main golden rule "He who owns the gold, makes the rules", which can be changed to "The he who owns the guns, makes the rules". Monarchs do not want their subjects to be armed, that would give them the tools to overthrow a tyrant.

Oh, but an armed population would not work in these modern times of professional armies. Yeah, right, tell that to the Viet Minh. Or try telling that to the British Army in Northern Ireland, where they have been fighting the IRA for how long? Or look at the cluster f**k in Iraq, with the militants running amock.

I was a police officer, and I am a 9-1-1 Telecommunicator. So I can tell you for a fact, that the police will get to the scene of a crime about 95% of the times after the bad guy has left. It will take my 9-1-1 center about 2 minutes to process a crime in progress call, that is from answering the phone, find out where help is needed, and dispatching the appropriate agency. If you are in the city, it will take the PD about 3-5 minutes to get there. So now we are talking about 5-7 minutes from the time you find the bad guy in your house until the police show up. And if you are in the rural county, it may take the Sheriff Deputies about 10-15 minutes to show up. Do you have what it takes to protect yourself from an intruder in your residence for 5 minutes or more? Just remember, that the police is a reactionary force, they will show up after someone discovers the crime and calls them.

If I catch you breaking into my house, you have forfitted any rights that you have. Any one that breaks into a home, knowing that the owner is inside, is determined to harm you. And yes, your rights stop when they intrude into mine.

And yes, I find the idea of having to use force abhorrent. I have been in positions where I have had to use deadly force, and it was not fun at all. Years after, I still have nightmares about it, just not as bad as they used to be. But guess what, I am here to tell you about it. Do I ever want to take another life? Not at all, and I don't want to go thru that again. Will I do it if I have to? You bet your sweet ass that I will, without thinking about it. If I see you posing an immediate deadly threat to any member of my family or another person, I will respond in kind by using deadly force. And I don't mean shooting to wound, I will shoot to kill, since I will answer deadly force with immediate deadly force.

Like the old saying goes, "Peace Thru Superior Fire Power"

Y'all be safe out there, and be careful.

Vic

get your facts right. they were the ones being bullied.

No you get your facts right. The bullied kids shot the bullies. It was not the other way around.

Keibukia,


Are you on ARFCOM?

Not normally. Why?

Fortunately He has every right to decide......for God gave people free will after adam and eve ate of the tree of life. The choices he makes are his own and at the end of eternity God shall bring him for judgement.....and then god shall decide if he was wrong or right.
I'm not trying to force him to do anything. Only trying to help him, with the aforementioned judgement in mind.

if you pay attention the bible is full of people who fought to defend their famlies, friends and countries from those who were evil and intended to do harm to them.
God Himself spoke to the Israelites, so they knew who was evil and should have been killed. God slaughtered people, yes but that was His right, and he also showed mercy.

Is it revenge to protect myself? No. If you equate that then that's really too bad. I find it simply amazing that there are adults in this country with no sense of self-preservation.
It's questionable whether self-preservation is something worth obsessing over as you do, I'm undecided on that (i.e. "do not resist an evil person") myself. But why obsess over it? This world is transient, the next one is eternal.

FYI, I do abhor violence. Really and truely, I do.
Seriously? That certainly is not the picture you present on this forum. That is, you spend most of the time either talking about how to kill "bad guys", or how much fun it is to destroy things with your guns, or suggesting that the US government do [insert violent action] in the Middle East.

I don't buy your claim. I abhor violence. And do you know how I know that? It's because I don't advocate it.

Not normally. Why?

I was just asking.

I'm not trying to force him to do anything. Only trying to help him, with the aforementioned judgement in mind.


God Himself spoke to the Israelites, so they knew who was evil and should have been killed. God slaughtered people, yes but that was His right, and he also showed mercy.


It's questionable whether self-preservation is something worth obsessing over as you do, I'm undecided on that (i.e. "do not resist an evil person") myself. But why obsess over it? This world is transient, the next one is eternal.

Seeing as how this thread is about guns, and guns are inexplicably linked to self defense, it's hard to see how it's been obsessed over. Perhaps tell he OP to not start threads on guns? Nah..

Seriously? That certainly is not the picture you present on this forum. That is, you spend most of the time either talking about how to kill "bad guys",

or how much fun it is to destroy things with your guns,

I've posted a range report? I never knew that.

or suggesting that the US government do [insert violent action] in the Middle East.






I don't buy your claim. I abhor violence. And do you know how I know that? It's because I don't advocate it.

Would you say the same of Sgt York?




He was an absolute pacifist who was drafted into the army. He went to Europe where he earned the CMOH...For killing 23 german soldiers.

I do still consider myself rather mellow but I don't remain mellow when the occasion calls for it.

1-M-16
1-AK74
1-AK47
1-M14
2-9mm
1-.45
2-.22
2-12 gauge
1-20 gauge
1-410 gauge

and a few other rifles.

Would you say the same of Sgt York?
He was an absolute pacifist who was drafted into the army. He went to Europe where he earned the CMOH...For killing 23 german soldiers.

Don't absolute pacifists normally fail to turn up when they are conscripted for a war? Yes, I know this may entail going to jail or even execution, but that's what an absolute pacifist does.

Though I can of course respect the difference between a reluctant pacifist soldier and some testosterone-filled, gung-ho maniac who just can't wait to pump lead.

What does it have to do with the thread anyway?

Don't absolute pacifists normally fail to turn up when they are conscripted for a war? Yes, I know this may entail going to jail or even execution, but that's what an absolute pacifist does.

Though I can of course respect the difference between a reluctant pacifist soldier and some testosterone-filled, gung-ho maniac who just can't wait to pump lead.

What does it have to do with the thread anyway?

York was a patriotic pacifist. I certainly respect him for what he did.

This is basically a thread hi-jack.

I'm from the US, support gun ownership but don't own a gun as I only just turned 21 (although dad owns a 9mm for home protection, which he keeps locked up in compliance with state gun laws). I'd like to get one or two though, one day down the line when I'm on my own and my finances are in order. Got my eye on a .45 Ruger Vaquero. :gundge:

I believe we should ban the ownership of handguns. There is no reason why civilians should have them

(A) Yes, there is.

(B) Even if (A) weren't true, the absence of a reason to possess something is not a sufficient basis for prohibiting it.

And yes, there are good reasons for the military to use them as well.

The only reason criminals are able to GET handguns illegally is because every yahoo and his wife own a couple in their home (for home defense of course) so when a crackhead breaks in during the middle of the day, there they are, just waiting to be stolen and used to murder someone.

That's silly. You're saying we should ban something so that it cannot be stolen by a third party and used illegally. We could all reduce to 0 the number of grand theft autos by banning cars, too, but we don't, because that would be dump. (And I dispute that that would work, anyway).

This clearly shows that US citizens are dumber than non-US citizens and that's why they are mostly for gun ownership despite all the deaths related to guns in that country while non-US citizens seem to be against it.

Lousy logic. Did it occur to you the people being shot to death are the ones that don't own guns?

Most people in the U.S. killed by guns are gang members, so you can usefully avoid being shot to death here by making some simple lifestyle changes, i.e., not dealing drugs.

And crime statistics here are severely inflated. I am told constantly that I live in one of the most dangerous states in the U.S. (Maryland, which ranks #1 in robberies and #3 in murders, despite it's hugely strict gun control), although I have never known the victim of a crime by less than three degrees of separation.

Police carry guns with rubber bullets here. That's a lot smarter than real bullets because you don't kill the person but you make him harmless.

Good for the police. Last I heard the French police could not venture in vast swaths of their own country for fear of being attacked by Islamic extremists, and the UK had overtaken the U.S. in all rates of crime except rape and murder (and was narrowing the gap there).

When you've had screwed up gun laws for so many years it's hard to fix it in one day.

European gun bans are pretty recent phenomena. So either this statement is untrue or European nations are adjusting poorly to gun bans (which I would argue is true).

I think that's the problem here in America. The police aren't so accessible here. Like I said earlier, there are no cops in my town after midnight.

I dunno about y'all but I consider it a generally positive good that we don't live in a police state.

It's also common knowledge in this area that the cops will not investigate property theft, they only come and take a report for your insurance.

That's because they're not legally obligated to protect you. Thank the Supreme Court and it's 10+ decisions on the matter.

I dont think they should be sold at places like Walmart, they shouldnt be openly available.

Why not, if Wal-Mart complies with all federal regulations and is licensed as a federal gun dealer? Is your only objection that you feel nauseous in the presence of guns?

buying guns for protection /just to have around is a bit ludicrous, the king of England is not going to attack anyone

The King of England doesn't have to.

nor will "the crazy black man".

...And neither does the "crazy black man," whatever the hell you're talking about. I guess you're trying to imply gun owners are closet racists but that was a really ham-handed attempt at doing so.

Although it's worth pointing out that black men are apparently overrepresented in crime rates, so your assertion that they don't attack people is empirically false. See the Crips, the Bloods, et al., which

If guns were banned then you would have a huge decrease in murders.

This is also empirically false.

Im saying guns shouldnt be available to be picked up at shopping malls, theyre lethal weapons, youre just opening up to wackos getting them.

It's no more possible for whackos to get guns at Wal-Mart (which is not a shopping mall) than it is for them to get them from gun stores. They all have to comply with the same laws.

You're just uncomfortable with the possibility of sharing a 500-foot radius with an icky icky gun when shopping for super-cheap beef jerky.

So Columbine was a bad example. Heres a good one. In the early nineties in the UK a lunatic went on the rampage in a primary school in Dunblanne, Scotland, killing several young children before turning the gun on himself. All this was done with legally owned firearms.

Yeah, I've heard of this. It was the oft-trotted out national tragedy used to ram through the UK's gun ban.

It shows nothing except that banning guns is a band-aid solution. Try dealing with lunatics first, cause they'll kill people with just about anything.

Anyways, would you legalize guns in a country where they are forbidden and crime rate's are low?

Uh, I dunno about you, but I wouldn't be going around imposing laws on another country unless we had just defeated them in a war or something, a la post-WW2 Japan.

Unfortunately, you have no right to decide who is "bad" enough to deserve death out of your gun's barrel.

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth.

Matthew 6:15 "But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins."

If you're an atheist this sort of thing will probably make you want to aim your weapons at me, but this is the truth!

Reject revenge.

Shooting a man who's trying to kill you does not preclude forgiving him after the fact.

Besides, Bible quotes taken out of context are not a sufficient basis for government policy, especially if you value separation of church and state.

This is a firearms thread, right? Why aren't there more pics of firearms? :D

I'd love to eventually run some ammo through one of these: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://users.bigpond.net.au/minigun/images/m134.jpg&imgrefurl=http://users.bigpond.net.au/minigun/M134.htm&h=236&w=159&sz=30&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=Y8z0zgGV7Ud40M:&tbnh=109&tbnw=73&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dge%2B7.62%2Bmm%2Bminigun%26svnum%3D30%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

This is a firearms thread, right? Why aren't there more pics of firearms? :D

I'd love to eventually run some ammo through one of these: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://users.bigpond.net.au/minigun/images/m134.jpg&imgrefurl=http://users.bigpond.net.au/minigun/M134.htm&h=236&w=159&sz=30&hl=en&start=9&tbnid=Y8z0zgGV7Ud40M:&tbnh=109&tbnw=73&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dge%2B7.62%2Bmm%2Bminigun%26svnum%3D30%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN

GM...



Post some pics of your AR man!

Speaking of gun ownership, i saw a stainless beretta mini cougar today at the range and goddamnit I want one.

One, an old bolt action Moisin-Nangant 91/30. Just purchased, actually. All matching parts, made in 1941. Damn thing kicks like a mother, but it was really cheap and accurate.

Mmmmm...thinking of all those fellow Americans at the range exercising their right to own firearms just gives me that warm, tingly feeling inside.

GM...



Post some pics of your AR man!

Already did: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12139718&postcount=41

BTW, the checkerboard pattern on my rifle is due to the foam in the rifle case, it's not a permanent pattern.

Happiness is a new scope.


I finally got my Dad's old B6 scope repaired and returned. It took me a half-hour to find it. The UPS guy tied the package to the door of my neighbors barn. Pictures later.

York was a patriotic pacifist. I certainly respect him for what he did.
You respect him for going against his pacifist beliefs?

I own lots of fire arms.
5 shot guns, 12 ga pump,12 ga simi auto, 1 20ga pump 1 20 ga,1 20ga simi auto and a 410 ga.
10 rifels
2 22cals,227,303,308,30/30,30/06,7mm mag,9mm mag
3 Muzzle loaders
44 cal,50 cal and 54 cal
7 hand guns
22,32,38,380,9mm,44,45.

Pro-gun ownership, got 1 gun (little 5-shooter with a laser sight), and I'm American.

There should be no restrictions on firearm ownerhsip.The Second Amendment means what it says.

I couldn't vote on the poll because:
I DO own a firearm
BUT I am opposed to firearm ownership (Non-US citizen).

A poll is simply not a poll without an 'other' option...

Pro-gun ownership, got 1 gun (little 5-shooter with a laser sight), and I'm American.
And yet you're also Austrian?

There should be no restrictions on firearm ownerhsip.The Second Amendment means what it says.
Just because the 2nd Amendment says it, doesn't make it true. The US Constitution is not the word of God.

And yet you're also Austrian?

I'm an adherent of the Austrian School of Economics, but I'm of American origin.

Just because the 2nd Amendment says it, doesn't make it true. The US Constitution is not the word of God.

Maybe not, but the Constitution is the word of law in the US.

In fairness, those are somewhat rational reasons.

Unless you're the type that sees nothing wrong with killing people.


I'm not in the US. I only speak for my country.


First off, those are not only irational, those are insane reasons. Those are the type of reasons that you'd hear from someone who has never even shot, let alone held or seen a real gun of those types. I disagree with murder in cold blood of course. Every citizen should have the right to defend himself/herself when their life is threatened by another individividual, when the citizen has a perfect right to exist in that area the first place. In other words if some gang banger pointed a gun at you when you were on your way to work, you would have every legal reason to defend yourself, especially implementing "deadly force". Deadly force should be implemented only when an individuals life is in danger. That's why most states in the US have the "concealed carry" right. To tell you why banning firearms is a very bad thing, look at England. The crime rate has sky rocketed ever since they banned firearms to citizens. When you ban firearms, the only ones who abide by that law, are law abiding citizens, while the criminals who live outside of the law (hence the definition) do not abide by that law and accquire firearms regardless of any rediculous ban, by illegal means. Rendering the law abiding citizens unarmed and vulnerable to criminals with their firearms that they accquire illegaly anyway.

There should be no restrictions on firearm ownerhsip.The Second Amendment means what it says.

But isn't the militia the National Guard? :rolleyes:

But isn't the militia the National Guard? :rolleyes:

The National Guard and all males aged 18-45. But the well-regulated bit would limit it to the National Guard.

But isn't the militia the National Guard? :rolleyes:

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

The part that mentions the militia: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..." is subordinate to the part that mentions the people: "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Basically, read this, it explains it: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

American

1 Norinco Type-56
1 Yugoslavian M48
1 German K98K
2 Remington 870s - 1 Duck Hunting - 1 Home Defense
1 Mossberg 500
1 Colt M1911a1
1 Colt Python .357 6 Inch.
1 SA-58 Imbel (Civi Version)
1 Remington 500
1 Winchester Model 1887
1 Winchester 10 GA. Coach Gun
1 Russian Makarov PM
1 Russian TT-33
1 Polish Wz. 89 (Civi Version)
1 Romanian WASR-10 (Civi Version)

This Pacifist owns a 1909 Colt .45 Revolver which was my Grandfather's
However, I own no ammunition, as I gave away the case of hollow points which came with the gun.

But isn't the militia the National Guard? :rolleyes:

Partially. Here's how my state defines the militia.

32.509 State military establishment; composition; organized and unorganized militia.

Sec. 109.

The organized militia of this state taken collectively shall be known as the state military establishment and constitutes the armed forces of this state. The organized militia consists of the army national guard, the air national guard, and the defense force when actually in existence as provided in this act. The unorganized militia consists of all other able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied citizens who are residents of this state who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be age 17 or over and not more than age 60, and shall be subject to state military duty as provided in this act.

3 Chinese made AK 47s
3 1911 45s
2 Glocks
3 22 rifles
M4 rifle
Sten MK 3
Tech 9
2 9 Milimeters
2 Luger rifles
AR 15
2 20 Guage shotguns
12 guage shotgun
(no zombies are gonna take me an my family :D

Of course my dad is also a cop so that may account for a lot of the guns. and yes i am an american. I think everybody should own a gun.

Just out of curiosity, as the mere ownership of firearms is contoversial here in NSG, who owns firearms, of what sort, and, for comparitive purposes, what's your nationality?

US

Ruger P-89 9mm
Colt 1908 Hammerless, Nickel .380
Colt Navy C&B x 2 .44
Colt Pocket .31 C&B
Winchester '94 .44
FN/FAL .308
Bernadelli .22
Vulcan (1920s Sears) Coachgun 12 ga.
IAC Coachgun 12 ga.
HK VP70Z 9mm
LAWS Tube 66mm.

I don’t own a gun and I don’t think I ever will, but I support the right of people to legally purchase a firearm after background checks and a waiting period, if only to defend their homes from burglaries and such.
Oh, and for hunting I guess.

I think everybody should own a gun.



I couldn't agree more. In fact, I think it should be mandatory. Make everyone own a gun.


--- and make ammuntition illegal.

I do think that there shoudl be checks on people who are tyring to buy guns to make sure they dont have a violent history.

So, guilty until proven innocent?

I believe we should ban the ownership of handguns. There is no reason why civilians should have them, and small reason for military to have them these days.

Why?

What if I have a reason? Or, does your dicate overrule?

As for hunting weapons, I believe anything within reason is fine.

Who decides this "reason?" And, from where do they derive their authority?

I wonder how many who say in this thread that trophy hunting is abominable, had said they would kill a puppy for a million dollars...

Just curious...

Uhhh, have I said they can't? I've just expressed my opinion of how stupid gun ownership is and if they want to have it they can, luckely I don't live there.

Yeah...

Stupid...

Imagine if the Jews in Warsaw had been armed.

Originally Posted by Rooseveldt
I believe we should ban the ownership of handguns. There is no reason why civilians should have them, and small reason for military to have them these days.

If guns were criminalized then only criminals would have guns and then what? Have eveybody trying to defend themselves with sticks? Now please, correct me if im wrong as i am not 100% sure on this subject but i do believe that their has been studies done that show the more people who own guns then the lower the nations violent crimes and homicides will be.

here is a link on Swiss gun control which explains how will their decision on gun control works and i think it would be a good idea to listen considering their homicide rate is really low http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3ae771eb4adb.htm

Yeah...

Stupid...

Imagine if the Jews in Warsaw had been armed.

They'd all be dead for possessing arms during an occupation.

I wonder how many who say in this thread that trophy hunting is abominable, had said they would kill a puppy for a million dollars...

Just curious...

I don't hunt unless i need the food and i wouldn't kill that poor puppy unless, again, i needed the food. thankfull we have supermarkets which supply me with all my favorite meats :)

I wonder how many who say in this thread that trophy hunting is abominable, had said they would kill a puppy for a million dollars...

Just curious...

I did. With trophy hunting you're killing just to kill, and you keep part of the animal to remind you of that kill. Killing an animal for a million dollars actually gets you something you can use. Anyway, killing the puppy for a million dollars may not be right, but it's something I'd be willing to live with. People here may want to think they'd do the right thing, but I'd be willing to bet that if they had a suitcase of money and a puppy in front of them a fair number who said they wouldn't do it would.

Just though I'd shed some light on the swizterland situation, as I lived their for 6 months. All male citizens over 21 have to spend a year in their natioanl army unless excempt, and then every so often attend basic training to keep em fresh. They all have a rifle (I'm not a huge gun fan so dont know what model, look it up) which they have to clean and upkeep in their home.

I guess it compares on which statistics you use if they have the highest number of guns per citizen in europe, as I belive over 50% of the households have a goverment issued one, but what the statisitc of private ownership (which is legal) is I don't know. Their police are also armed.

However the culture there is very law obiding (They dont even jaywalk for christsake) and so gun crime is very low. I belive its more of a nations mentality then whether they are legel that decides the number of guncrimes.

Having said that I live in england and are very glad guns are illegal here, as it means their are alot less of them on the street. I do a martial art (aikedo and have a optimistic chance if someone comes at me with a knife. But id just drop to the floor and slowly take out my wallet if someone had a gun. I dont belive legal ownership would make me any safer - how many people take their gun out on a friday night? I know a lot more people who have been mugged than had their house broken into.

Also just on the side have done live rifle shooting, was great fun and think shooting is great as a sport. Not so keen on hunting but in moderation against abundant species can live with it, although myself would only kill something i would eat. And if you need your manly adreniline kicks go paintballing, its just as good.

I dont think they should be sold at places like Walmart, they shouldnt be openly available.

So, you want to dictate what legal products may be sold and where? Nice tyranny.

Maybe they could be sold under tight regulations for hunting and people could be allowed to keep guns as antiques but buying guns for protection /just to have around is a bit ludicrous,

Until you need it, that is.

Bit of too late then, wouldn't you say?

the king of England is not going to attack anyone,

Point?

nor will "the crazy black man".

Yeah.

Tell it to Darrent Williams.

If guns were banned then you would have a huge decrease in murders. Thing would be safer without them for everyone.

Really...

What about this?

I've read many posts here that exult Britain's storng anti-gun laws and how crime is lessened because of them.

But, according to the House of Commons, who submitted a report in 2003 entitled Social Indicators, crime with handguns increased 122% from 2,648 in 1997 to 5,871 in 2002. Just five years.
-- http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-003.pdf

..|..........*
..|..........*
C.|..........*
r.|..........*
i.|..........*
m.|......*.*.*
e.|......*.*.*
..|*.*.*.*.*.*
---------------
Y.|1|1|1|2|2|2|
e.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
a.|9|9|9|0|0|0|
r.|7|8|9|0|1|2|

So, what happened?

Incidentally Im not American.

Well, imagine that.

You should have to go through a rigorous bureaucratic process before you even get to own a hunting rifle, that should be the only type of gun available, for hunting obviously.

Another "guilty until proven innocent" type.

Tyrant, to boot.

...the big scary black man...

Bigot, too.

Someone wanted pictures. Here's my pride and joy and the only gun I have that's for investment purposes (one of those non-reasons);

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y20/ckirmser/ColtHammerless2.jpg

Mmmm.... venison.

Just because the 2nd Amendment says it, doesn't make it true.

It makes it the LAW.

But isn't the militia the National Guard? :rolleyes:

No.

The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia is a subset of the people consisting of all males 17-45 (if I recall the Code correctly).

In order to provide the militia, the people must be armed. If the people are not armed, then the militia is not armed. An unarmed militia is as useful as a diet crouton.

They'd all be dead for possessing arms during an occupation.

Not if they had been able to prevent the occupation. Or, at least, make it cost the Germans more than it did. Or, maybe if the Jews in Germany had been armed.

Nazi gun control laws had a similar basis to US gun control laws. Theirs to keep guns out of the hands of Jews, ours to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.

Not if they had been able to prevent the occupation. Or, at least, make it cost the Germans more than it did. Or, maybe if the Jews in Germany had been armed.

Nazi gun control laws had a similar basis to US gun control laws. Theirs to keep guns out of the hands of Jews, ours to keep guns out of the hands of blacks.

Great so, they'd still all be dead, but with a few Germans too.

That solves the problem then doesn't it.

Great so, they'd still all be dead, but with a few Germans too.

Maybe, maybe not.

That solves the problem then doesn't it.

It would have made the price higher, perhaps one that Germany wasn't ready to pay, and may have delayed them enough to allow others to make a move that may have made Germany think twice.

So, guilty until proven innocent?

Actually, there's already a background check performed whenever an FFL sells a firearm. It's the NICS check.

Maybe, maybe not.



It would have made the price higher, perhaps one that Germany wasn't ready to pay, and may have delayed them enough to allow others to make a move that may have made Germany think twice.

Because being able to effectively fight against the SS is a bad thing. I guess 65,000 dead isn't too high of a price to pay for a safe society.

I did. With trophy hunting you're killing just to kill, and you keep part of the animal to remind you of that kill. Killing an animal for a million dollars actually gets you something you can use. Anyway, killing the puppy for a million dollars may not be right, but it's something I'd be willing to live with. People here may want to think they'd do the right thing, but I'd be willing to bet that if they had a suitcase of money and a puppy in front of them a fair number who said they wouldn't do it would.

Quite laughable.... Have you been trophy hunting yourself? I'm guessing not, becuase if you had, you would know that with trophy hunting in Africa, the meat goes to the poor and starving local villages which run rampant with malaria due to the ban on DDT because of activists that are afraid to kill a few mosquitos. And even if it didn't, the hunting of the animal itself prevents the overpopulation of that particular population. In other words, no hunters, animals eat all of their food, animals starve and all of them die. Hunting is required to keep the population from overpopulating. Second trophy hunting is a perfectly reasonable tradition. It's been around since the dawn of man, and in no way is it your place to try and terminate a legal, honorable, and noble tradition such as trophy hunting. I do it myself.

For the whole jews in poland v nazis thing

First, alot of polish jewish men where conscripted to fight two weeks before the Nazis invaded. They lost due to inadequate weaponry, lack of training, lack of moral and mainly lack of heavy support (air or armour). Even in WW2 a militia was useless in defense against a well prepared invader (althouhg could have success as a partisian force).

Second, in the ghettos, many Jews did seize weapons, mainly suplied by the polish resitance. In August 1944 they supported the polish home army in the Warsaw uprising. They foguht bravely, but lack of heavy equipemnt and training led to them been slaughted by the waffen ss. The red army stood on the other side of the vistula and watched.

Personally I'm not sure the milita arguement works for most countries. Swizterlands stratergy is the distruction of all transport links, and then every single man in its country a potential partisan. Swizterland has never been invaded in the last 100 odd years, so no one knows its effectiveness. But in a mountiness country, it is quite likly a well trained partisan force would have great sucess if transport links where sabotaged.

In countries like america and britian I'm not sure a milita would be so effective. For starters, it is very unlikly that both of these countries would ever face a large scale land invasion. There is no option of sabotaging transport links to the effect that the enemy cannot deploy armour, both countries are in large parts flat, with huge tracts of pastureised or urbanised land - not good for guriella fighting. Milita in both countries would both eb more likely used for crowd control and other emergency civil sitations. I'd rather not have a untrained red neck pointing a gun at me in a protest.

Iraq is a good example of a mdoern milita. Most of the forces fighting against the coallition are sunni or sheite militas. They are basic trained, many of them ex members of the Iraqi army before invasion. The ak47 is on par with many of the arnaments you might expect a western milita to have - simple and reliable. And against a well trained army with heavy support (the collition) they take huge casulites compared to the americans. They are willing to do so. But I'm not sure a western milita would have the same courage/devout faith/suicidal stupitidy - choose what you will

Actually, there's already a background check performed whenever an FFL sells a firearm. It's the NICS check.

But, there is no check if one purchases from a private seller.

However, I am against the current NICS check, too. It is, as I said, an assertion of guilt until innocence is proven.

Many years ago a congressman, I can't recall his name, proposed a system where a background check is not needed.

As everyone has to carry some form of ID, his proposal was to provide a bar-code or mag-stripe mechanism on all IDs, no exceptions. Thus, equality.

Those prohibited from firearms possession would have their ID encoded so.

When purchasing a firearm, a dealer would have a scanner that simply reads for the prohibited code. If found, an annunciator would trigger telling the dealer that the purchase is prohibited. Thus, no sale.

Non-prohibited buyers would have no such trigger and so the sale could proceed.

With this system, no background check is made, no transfer of any personal information is made - in fact, the scanning unit would be standalone with no network connection at all. One's ID simply has a binary variable saying CAN'T BUY.

Of course, this will not lessen black-market transactions, but what system will that will also ensure the best civil liberties of the people?

The above system is still a form of "guilty until proven innocent," but it assigns no personal information to the check and treads upon our rights the least, as best I can tell.

Because being able to effectively fight against the SS is a bad thing. I guess 65,000 dead isn't too high of a price to pay for a safe society.

It is, indeed, too high a price to pay for a "safe" society.

But, it is not too high a price to pay for a FREE society.

I'm French. I live in a safe country where we don't need guns to be safe.

I feel genuinely sorry for anyone living in a country where they feel they need to have a gun.

Also, as Bill Bryson puts it (in I'm a Stranger Here Myself, 1999):


Forty percent of Americans keep guns in their homes [...]. The odds that one of those guns will ever be used to shoot a criminal are comfortable under one in a million. The odds that it will be used to shoot a member of the household - generally a child fooling around - are at least twenty times that figure. Yet over 100 million people resolutely ignore this fact.

For the whole jews in poland v nazis thing

First, alot of polish jewish men where conscripted to fight two weeks before the Nazis invaded. They lost due to inadequate weaponry, lack of training, lack of moral and mainly lack of heavy support (air or armour). Even in WW2 a militia was useless in defense against a well prepared invader (althouhg could have success as a partisian force).

Second, in the ghettos, many Jews did seize weapons, mainly suplied by the polish resitance. In August 1944 they supported the polish home army in the Warsaw uprising. They foguht bravely, but lack of heavy equipemnt and training led to them been slaughted by the waffen ss. The red army stood on the other side of the vistula and watched.

Probably quite true. But, is this a reason to deprive them of arms or improve what they had?

In countries like america and britian I'm not sure a milita would be so effective.

Maybe so. Or, maybe not. Because you don't know - or others - then the tools needed by that militia must be denied?

Before going to the Moon, it was not considered all that sure that we could make it. So, because of that doubt, the Saturn V should never have been built? The Apollo Program never started?

Is your argument, because we doubt, we do not try?

For starters, it is very unlikly that both of these countries would ever face a large scale land invasion.

Quite true. An argument I've made repeatedly to underscore that we were under no threat from Germany (usually in response to those who say we were under no threat from Iraq). A 3000-mile supply line is a difficult thing to secure.

But, a German plan was to invade via Central America. Panama would have proven to be a difficult bottleneck to overcome, but, with Latin America's aid, it might have been attemptable. If we were an unarmed populace, this wold have been a significant concern. Certainly, such an invasion would be halted, but it would have meant troops recalled from Europe - or, just not sent in the first place. An armed populace would be that many more potential adversaries the Germans would have had to worry about.

I'd rather not have a untrained red neck pointing a gun at me in a protest.

Would you not want to have that red-neck (recall that Sgt. York was a red-neck) who can put out the eye of a squirrel from 100 yards on your side to help you defend against an invader? Or, to provide an environment where a criminal may think twice before muggin you, because he doesn't know if you might be a gun-totin' red-neck yourself.

Washington DC has the most draconian gun laws in the nation - last that I heard - yet, they do not have the promised low crime rates to go along with it. Why?

Iraq is a good example of a mdoern milita.

And, observe our difficulties.

But I'm not sure a western milita would have the same courage/devout faith/suicidal stupitidy - choose what you will

Affluence breeds sloth. Were we not so affluent - a surfeit of material goods that may be lost, given resistance - we might prove as courageous in the resistance, but, hopefully, not so stupid in the means, i.e., suicide bombers.

Further, why is it always assumed that the US military would not be there to aid a militia in times of invasion or, in the case of insurrection against a government gone tyrannical, that they would not aid the People from which they come?

I'm French. I live in a safe country where we don't need guns to be safe.

Tell it to the French Resistance of World War II.

I feel genuinely sorry for anyone living in a country where they feel they need to have a gun.

And, which country is that?

Personally, I feel sorry for the French for surrendering to the Germans after a mere six weeks of war - particularly when you had a military that could have wiped the German forces off the map, had your country applied them, rather than rely upon a static Maginot Line.

Lest you think I am simply anti-French; my paternal Grandfather, though Alsatian, was an officer in the French Cavalry of World War I and I am named for him.

Tell it to the French Resistance of World War II.

Utterly irrelevant to contemporary French society. We have no need for guns today.

Utterly irrelevant to contemporary French society. We have no need for guns today.

Amazing!

You are empowered to speak for all of France?

How about the moslem kids rioting and burning Paris not too long ago? Had no need for guns then, did you?

I'm French. I live in a safe country where we don't need guns to be safe.

I feel genuinely sorry for anyone living in a country where they feel they need to have a gun.

Also, as Bill Bryson puts it (in I'm a Stranger Here Myself, 1999):

Mostly because neither of those are "facts".

Amazing!

You are empowered to speak for all of France?

Since gun ownership is a non-issue here, yes.

[/quote]
How about the moslem kids rioting and burning Paris not too long ago? Had no need for guns then, did you?[/QUOTE]

a) They were not "Moslem kids". They were primarily young men, yes, but of a wide variety of backgrounds. The rioting had absolutely nothing to do with Islam whatsoever.

b) "Burning Paris" is a huge overstatement. I live very near Paris. I was going into Paris for work. I felt safe the whole while. Yes, the rioting was a severe problem, but what I saw of reports in foreign media was blown out of all proportion. Which is what happens when media try to attract audiences through sensationalism.

c) In answer to your question: Most definitely not. Guns would have solved nothing, would have made everything a whole lot worse, and may well have led to deaths by shooting. We'll pass on that, thank you very much.

Utterly irrelevant to contemporary French society. We have no need for guns today.

You don't go to the banlieus, do ya, son?

Since gun ownership is a non-issue here, yes.

Enjoy your safety.

Until someone takes it away and you can't stop them.

a) They were not "Moslem kids". They were primarily young men, yes, but of a wide variety of backgrounds. The rioting had absolutely nothing to do with Islam whatsoever.

Irrelevant. My use of the term immediately identified to you who I was talking about.

b) "Burning Paris" is a huge overstatement.

Perhaps.

But, again, you knew exactly what I was refering to by my use of the phrase.

c) In answer to your question: Most definitely not. Guns would have solved nothing, would have made everything a whole lot worse, and may well have led to deaths by shooting. We'll pass on that, thank you very much.

Hmm.

We have an awful lot of guns in the US, yet I don't recall reading about Washington burning in the sensationalist press at all. Or, any other US city.

But, suit yourself. The Germans invaded you twice last century. Maybe they will or maybe they won't this century. Better that you can't stop them, right?

Mostly because neither of those are "facts".

Oh, yes, guns make you a whole lot safer! [/sarcasm]

In 1999, in the US, homicide by use of guns claimed 4.08 per 100,000 of the population in the US (compared to 0.12 in England & Wales). Unintentional death by use of gun: 0.42 in the US, less than 0.01 in England and Wales.

In other words, in the US, you are over forty times more likely to die as a result of a gun-related accident than if you lived in England. (Source (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm)).

8 children are killed every day in the US by a gun, either by being murdered, by committing suicide or by accident. (Source (http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html)).

Now somehow, if I were an American and were raising kids in the US, that wouldn't really make me want to have a gun in the house...

You don't go to the banlieus, do ya, son?

I live in the banlieues.

Try again.

We have an awful lot of guns in the US, yet I don't recall reading about Washington burning in the sensationalist press at all. Or, any other US city.

But, suit yourself. The Germans invaded you twice last century. Maybe they will or maybe they won't this century. Better that you can't stop them, right?

I seem to remember a certain sniper not too long ago.... claiming 10 lifes. Compared to the riots in France which only caused material damage.

Enjoy your safety.

Until someone takes it away and you can't stop them.


Your paranoia is faintly amusing, but I live in the real world.


But, again, you knew exactly what I was refering to by my use of the phrase.


Of course. I remember all the foreign media hype.


We have an awful lot of guns in the US, yet I don't recall reading about Washington burning in the sensationalist press at all. Or, any other US city.


What on earth are you on about? Go back and re-read what I actually wrote.


But, suit yourself. The Germans invaded you twice last century. Maybe they will or maybe they won't this century. Better that you can't stop them, right?

Oh, yes, you ARE hilarious! Such shocking ignorance is nothing new around here, but I still do find it amusing.

Now go and get yourself an education or something, then come back and tell me why the idea of Germany invading France in the future makes not the tiniest bit of sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

Oh, yes, guns make you a whole lot safer! [/sarcasm]

In 1999, in the US, homicide by use of guns claimed 4.08 per 100,000 of the population in the US (compared to 0.12 in England & Wales). Unintentional death by use of gun: 0.42 in the US, less than 0.01 in England and Wales.

In other words, in the US, you are over forty times more likely to die as a result of a gun-related accident than if you lived in England. (Source (http://www.gun-control-network.org/GF01.htm)).

8 children are killed every day in the US by a gun, either by being murdered, by committing suicide or by accident. (Source (http://thegreenman.net.au/mt/archives/000473.html)).

Now somehow, if I were an American and were raising kids in the US, that wouldn't really make me want to have a gun in the house...

Yay! let's compare international stats w/ false statistics.

8 "children" die every day if you include the definition of "children" to being up to and including 20 years old and include gang warfare in the stats.

Go peddle you false figures somewhere else. Of course the fact that France has a higher suicide rate than the US (which you also figure in) for that oh so stable age-group and has less firearms doesn't mean anything, does it?

Of course the fact that the # of firearms in the US increased while deaths of all types plummeted doesn't mean anything does it?

Of course "Greenman" claiming that the three cities w/ the some of the highest murder rates and the strictest gun laws made laws that "to restrict access to guns to teenagers." ( a complete lie) and that the "NRA wants these moves reversed" (another blatant lie) Makes the site so respectable.

Isn't the US/non-US divide amazing? The numbers are almost inverted.

I seem to remember a certain sniper not too long ago.... claiming 10 lifes. Compared to the riots in France which only caused material damage.

Two guys, not hundreds. Both hiding and not facing their victims. Called criminals. France has no criminals? Shall we check that?

We also had the LA riots back when the Rodney King verdict was announced. South Central LA burned and was looted. But, not the Korean-owned stores where the owners were armed and protected their property.

However, I never said that firearms would've stopped the rioters in France. It was said that there was no need for firearms in France and these riots showed that there was, indeed, a need. If only for a property-owner to defend his own property against the rioters - as the Koreans did in LA.

Your paranoia is faintly amusing, but I live in the real world.

Glad to entertain.

Now go and get yourself an education or something, then come back and tell me why the idea of Germany invading France in the future makes not the tiniest bit of sense to anyone who knows what they're talking about.

I have an education. But, thanx for the personal attack.

How much sense did it make for Germany to invade France in 1914? 1940?

Or, how much sense did it make to defend against a Soviet invasion through Europe?

It is foolish to think of one's defense only AFTER the attack.

Two guys, not hundreds. Both hiding and not facing their victims. Called criminals. France has no criminals? Shall we check that?

We also had the LA riots back when the Rodney King verdict was announced. South Central LA burned and was looted. But, not the Korean-owned stores where the owners were armed and protected their property.

However, I never said that firearms would've stopped the rioters in France. It was said that there was no need for firearms in France and these riots showed that there was, indeed, a need. If only for a property-owner to defend his own property against the rioters - as the Koreans did in LA.

Just take a moment to read what you just wrote.
The snipers claimed 10 lifes.
The LA riots claimed between 50 and 60 lifes.
The riots in France didn't claim a single life.

Now imagine the rioters in France would have been as able/willing to use guns as the rioters in the USA. Just for a second. And then please repeat the statement that France needs to arm its population.

Glad to entertain.



I have an education. But, thanx for the personal attack.

How much sense did it make for Germany to invade France in 1914? 1940?

Or, how much sense did it make to defend against a Soviet invasion through Europe?

It is foolish to think of one's defense only AFTER the attack.

So, is Texas currently arming itself with all it can afford against an attack from Hawaii?

Just take a moment to read what you just wrote.
The snipers claimed 10 lifes.
The LA riots claimed between 50 and 60 lifes.
The riots in France didn't claim a single life.

I don't give a flip what lives were claimed. It is irrelevant to the topic. That topic is defense of one's self or one's property.

Now imagine the rioters in France would have been as able/willing to use guns as the rioters in the USA.

The rioters DIDN'T USE ANY GUNS. The Koreans store-owners did in the protection of their property and themselves.

They succeeded.

And then please repeat the statement that France needs to arm its population.

I don't recall saying that France needs to arm its population. Care to demonstrate where I did? My assertion is that the VICTIMS of the French riots - I don't care a whit about the rioters; once rioting, they're just targets - might have been safer had they been armed.

Whether they choose to arm or not, is another issue. We, in the US, are FREE to make that choice - for the moment - France is not.

One of those FREEDOMS that we have and "enlightened" Europe does not.

So, is Texas currently arming itself with all it can afford against an attack from Hawaii?

Nice strawman.

Do you practice, or does your talent come naturally?

The only firearm I own and will ever own is my trusty Beretta 3032 airsoft pistol. It's great fun when my friend comes round with his. ^_^

The only firearm I own and will ever own is my trusty Beretta 3032 airsoft pistol. It's great fun when my friend comes round with his. ^_^

That's a toy, not a firearm...

I don't give a flip what lives were claimed. It is irrelevant to the topic. That topic is defense of one's self or one's property.



The rioters DIDN'T USE ANY GUNS. The Koreans store-owners did in the protection of their property and themselves.

They succeeded.

The rioters killed 50 to 60 people by boring them to death, then, did they?



I don't recall saying that France needs to arm its population. Care to demonstrate where I did? My assertion is that the VICTIMS of the French riots - I don't care a whit about the rioters; once rioting, they're just targets - might have been safer had they been armed.

Ah... so how then do you suggest to arm only possible victims without at the same time also arming the possible attackers?


Whether they choose to arm or not, is another issue. We, in the US, are FREE to make that choice - for the moment - France is not.

One of those FREEDOMS that we have and "enlightened" Europe does not.

Join a gun sport association and you have the right to obtain guns almost anywhere in Europe.
Get informed.

Nice strawman.

Do you practice, or does your talent come naturally?

Strawman? It's the exact same situation. Well, maybe I should have picked New Mexico instead of Hawaii, as France does share a border with Germany.

How much sense did it make for Germany to invade France in 1914? 1940?


The context - as you well know, since you are educated - was utterly different. Do I need to spell out why?


Or, how much sense did it make to defend against a Soviet invasion through Europe?


From the point when France became a nuclear power, any Soviet invasion would have been foolish.

The fact remains that France is not at threat from any foreign invasion (as anyone who understands history and contemporary international relations knows), so your "point" is irrelevant.

My assertion is that the VICTIMS of the French riots - I don't care a whit about the rioters; once rioting, they're just targets - might have been safer had they been armed.


Now, see, we don't kill people in defence of property.

The rioters killed 50 to 60 people by boring them to death, then, did they?

Poor phrasing on my part. The guns used by the rioters were not to foment the riot, but to take advantage of it by gang-bangers and exact reprisals.

Ah... so how then do you suggest to arm only possible victims without at the same time also arming the possible attackers?

I don't suggest to "arm" anyone. To arm is a positive act. It is not my place to force upon or deny arms to anyone. It is up to an individual to decide if they need arms or not.

Join a gun sport association and you have the right to obtain guns almost anywhere in Europe.

Ah! Got it. So, in Europe, you have to go to special speech association clubs in order to exercise your right to speak?

A right that requires permission is a right denied.

Get informed.

Back atcha, sport.

Ah! Got it. So, in Europe, you have to go to special speech association clubs in order to exercise your right to speak?

A right that requires permission is a right denied.



Back atcha, sport.

Oh, so you can get all sorts of guns anywhere in the US without background check, at any age, at any time, and carry them anywhere you like then?
A regulated right is still a right, kid.

Strawman? It's the exact same situation. Well, maybe I should have picked New Mexico instead of Hawaii, as France does share a border with Germany.

Not the "exact situation."

If nothing else, New Mexico has no history of invading Texas - certainly not as recently as 67 years ago; in living memory.

Further, we are not armed by the state. We arm ourselves at our own discretion, unless that right is denied by some jurisdictions; for example, Washington DC.

You don't want to possess a firearm? Fine, don't. But, do not presume that you may dicatate to others to make your same decision for themselves.

I don't suggest to "arm" anyone. To arm is a positive act. It is not my place to force upon or deny arms to anyone. It is up to an individual to decide if they need arms or not.


You're skirting the issue. And saying that anyone who may then riot is entitled to be armed is irresponsible.


Ah! Got it. So, in Europe, you have to go to special speech association clubs in order to exercise your right to speak?


Making up nonsense because you've run out of arguments? The parallel between freedom of speech and "freedom" to be armed is far from an obvious one.

If it were, believe me, people here would demand the right to be armed.

As I said earlier, it's a non-issue here because people do not feel any need to have guns.

The context - as you well know, since you are educated - was utterly different. Do I need to spell out why?

Ah, yes, context - the universal excuse. As I recall, the context in 1940 was Lebensraum.

What might it be the next time? Stress from absorbing the economic woes of East Germany? A nationalist leader? Or, perhaps it might come from within; perhaps Jean-Marie Le Pen or one like him.

Or, maybe a resurgent Russia under someone like Zhirinovsky. They might need their own "lebensraum." Or, they just might wish to reassert Soviet dominance. Given Putin's possible involvement in the deaths of various journalists and critics, maybe a strong Russia is not ouotside his sphere of desires.

Or, maybe a moslem backlash to France's denial of scarves in classes. As France gets more and more moslems, will the Euro-French receive the inevitable changes well? Or, might they react in a less than tolerant manner?

From the point when France became a nuclear power, any Soviet invasion would have been foolish.

France had the military might to stop Hitler in his tracks and send Germany packing, but failed to do so. Why might you have not failed again?

The fact remains that France is not at threat from any foreign invasion (as anyone who understands history and contemporary international relations knows), so your "point" is irrelevant.

The fact remains that you were not "at threat" by anyone in 1936, either.

Someone is misunderstanding history. And, Chamberlain understood contemporary international relations.

In trying to determine who France had for leadership prior to Petain, I have discovered that it is quite difficult to determine who was president. It appears to have been Lebrun, but I see reports of assassinations, uprisings, coups, etc., many of them in the Third Republic. It appears that your history is far more tumultuous than ours. It would seem that an armed populace might have been a stabilizing factor.

At any rate, as you speak for all France, if you do not want your people to have firearms, then by all means, oppress them so. Perhaps the French can't be trusted with arms.

Now, see, we don't kill people in defence of property.

As your surrender in 1940 ably proved.

We do.

Now, see, we don't kill people in defence of property.

Will you guarantee that the people who invade my home are "only" after my "property"? Will you wait for the police while thugs are raping your wife/daughter/mother?

Oh, so you can get all sorts of guns anywhere in the US without background check, at any age, at any time, and carry them anywhere you like then?

We do have our rights denied in areas. That's why I choose not to return to my home state of Rhode Island.

Arizona goes even further than Texas in support of firearms rights. One can carry in Arizona anywhere they like. And, if one buys from a private citizen, no background check - same in Texas. Only one of my many firearms went through a background check. The rest I paid cash for and walked off with them.

A regulated right is still a right, kid.

It is a right denied, son.

You're skirting the issue. And saying that anyone who may then riot is entitled to be armed is irresponsible.

Any free citizen should be entitled to be armed.

Why not? Because one MIGHT turn to crime?

Well then, that logic dictates that all men be punished for rape, because they MIGHT rape.

Making up nonsense because you've run out of arguments? The parallel between freedom of speech and "freedom" to be armed is far from an obvious one.

Not at all.

A right is a right. All are of equal value. One right does not carry more weight than another.

Not if one wishes to be accurate.

If it were, believe me, people here would demand the right to be armed.

As I said earlier, it's a non-issue here because people do not feel any need to have guns.

And, I am still certain that you are not qualified to speak for any other than yourself, but choose to do so, anyway. However, suit yourself. I'm not trying to arm you. You are quite free to give up whatever rights you like.

Myseneum, i happen to agree with all of ur points.

As for France, they have the right to property and if someone tries to take away my right, i would be more then happy to defend my right by what ever means necessary.

Will you guarantee that the people who invade my home are "only" after my "property"? Will you wait for the police while thugs are raping your wife/daughter/mother?

Another excellent point. why would somebody want to take that kind of a chance when your family or friends could be in jeopardy

We do have our rights denied in areas. That's why I choose not to return to my home state of Rhode Island.

Arizona goes even further than Texas in support of firearms rights. One can carry in Arizona anywhere they like. And, if one buys from a private citizen, no background check - same in Texas. Only one of my many firearms went through a background check. The rest I paid cash for and walked off with them.



It is a right denied, son.

So from what i am reading it your position that any citizen should be able to buy a firearm without any background check whatsoever?

If this is the case then good luck. When some homicidal idiot with an IQ in single figures runs rampage through your town with weapons designed to kill (and lets face it, thats what they are designed for, nothing else) I'm sure you'll thank your lucky stars that idiot had the "right" to arm themslves.

We do have our rights denied in areas. That's why I choose not to return to my home state of Rhode Island.

Arizona goes even further than Texas in support of firearms rights. One can carry in Arizona anywhere they like. And, if one buys from a private citizen, no background check - same in Texas. Only one of my many firearms went through a background check. The rest I paid cash for and walked off with them.



It is a right denied, son.

Arizona restricts posession of firearms in establishments that serve alcohol as well as schools and government buildings.

And dont be an idiot, the right to bear arms is not denied by being limited and regulated any more than is the right to free speech.

The same logic which informs laws against "yelling fire in a crowded theater" or threatening the president informs restrictions on gun ownership. Rights have to be balanced against fundamentals of public safety.

Arizona restricts posession of firearms in establishments that serve alcohol as well as schools and government buildings.

True. But, since I don't drink and didn't visit any government buildings when I last visited Arizona, these escaped my attention.

And dont be an idiot, the right to bear arms is not denied by being limited and regulated any more than is the right to free speech.

Yes, it is.

The same logic which informs laws against "yelling fire in a crowded theater" or threatening the president informs restrictions on gun ownership. Rights have to be balanced against fundamentals of public safety.

These are consequences as a result of the poor judgement in the exercise of one's right to free speech. It is a result of unwisely appplying one's speech. The more accurate analog would be laws against shooting someone or one's property.

If there is a fire in the theater, you'd better yell it out.

Not the "exact situation."

If nothing else, New Mexico has no history of invading Texas - certainly not as recently as 67 years ago; in living memory.

Further, we are not armed by the state. We arm ourselves at our own discretion, unless that right is denied by some jurisdictions; for example, Washington DC.

You don't want to possess a firearm? Fine, don't. But, do not presume that you may dicatate to others to make your same decision for themselves.

New Mexico was part of Mexico during the Mexican-American war, if my knowledge of history doesn't fail me. As such, it does have a history of agression towards US America, and particularly Texas.

I don't dictate people what decision they can or can't make regarding the posession of firearms. As I pointed out before, they have the possibility to arm themselves if they choose. It would seem to me that you are simply annoyed by the fact that the largest part of Europe's population chooses not to arm themselves.

It is a right denied, son.

Son??? *roflmao
That's a new one!

I seem to remember that your consitution also gives you the right to "pursuit of happiness", right? Does that mean that you're allowed to steal your neighbour's car cause it would make you happy? Does it mean you can kill your mother in law cause it would make you happy? No? Seems like the regulations deny you that right, too, then.
Right of free speech? Does that mean you can finally swear on TV, then? Does it mean you can lie under oath without consequences? No? Oh dear, another right that you're being denied....

Will you guarantee that the people who invade my home are "only" after my "property"? Will you wait for the police while thugs are raping your wife/daughter/mother?

Why is it so hard to grasp that there's a fundamental difference between Europe and the USA at that level?
In the country I live in, not even the police carry guns. And the homicide figures are so far below those in the US that they are almost non-existent. In the 32 years I live here, there was 1 attempt to break into my house, and the burglar ran for it when I made my presence known by yelling at him.

Europe doesn't need more liberal gun rights. And neither does the majority of the population want them. On the contrary, Germany has recently made its legilation concerning the possesion of firearms stricter, following public pressure to do so.
The social structures and systems in Europe work differently in Europe than they do in the USA. The USA's crime problems wouldn't disappear if guns were outlawed, that's a ridiculous assumption. But Europe's crime problems would explode if guns were made too accessible.
Those riots in France were bad, yes, but at least nobody was killed. I personally regard that as a positive fact. If a larger part of the population had been armed, there would most certainly have been casualties.

Son??? *roflmao
That's a new one!

I seem to remember that your consitution also gives you the right to "pursuit of happiness", right? Does that mean that you're allowed to steal your neighbour's car cause it would make you happy? Does it mean you can kill your mother in law cause it would make you happy? No? Seems like the regulations deny you that right, too, then.
Right of free speech? Does that mean you can finally swear on TV, then? Does it mean you can lie under oath without consequences? No? Oh dear, another right that you're being denied....
Happiness isn't a right. It's something to be pursued with your gun.

It's the Declaration of Independence that states it, btw.