NationStates Jolt Archive

Countries where firearms are legal are not crime-free paradises. Therefore, arming the population doesn't seem to achieve anything. Likewise, countries where firearms are illegal are not crime-free paradises. Therefore disarming the population doesn't achieve anything either.

The only reason I'm all for keeping guns illegal in the UK is it does at least cut out that small category of crimes comitted with legally-owned weapons by crazy people. I suppose if you're doing someone's wife, you can be pretty safe in the knowledge that the irate husband probably doesn't have a gun. are you sure the irate husband doesn`t have a gun? the nice thing about an armed populace is you don`t know who is and who isn`t armed(for the most part). if some ne`er do well enters my home i assume he`s armed, my response is to meet the threat with an appropriate level of force. secondly, you probably shouldn`t be doing someone`s wife anyways. some of us don`t take kindly to that kind of behavior and if he were to catch you i`m sure that a gun would be the least of your worries. as a matter of fact, my size coupled with my Irish temper, i could do the job with my bare hands.

No ones moving the goalposts. We stated the case of most guns being made to kill, not for anything else. You stated that the case was the other way round. Now prove it.

No, it was designed. You're changing the wording to dodge the issue.

Keep dodging around puppy.

:headbang: i`m sick of this sh*t for now. you can go play hacky-sack. i`m going shooting. how about you Kecibukia?:mp5:

And now you go into the numbers of firearms produced to move the goalposts.

Your imagination has already been shown to be lacking so that is no surprise.

I am saying that guns are designed to kill people. The numbers of guns that have a certain purpose is certainly relevant.

And yet "people use" airplanes to "crash into other objects."

And to drop bombs, missiles, rockets on people.

Airplanes are *undeniably* weapons. Whether you say they are "designed" that way is utterly and totally irrelevant to the fact that they ARE weapons.

We were talking about airliners which is different from airplanes in general. Besides, all airplanes aren't built for the specific purpose of killing, there are many other uses for them. Guns have a few hunting and target shooting models but the main purpose for them is killing unlike airplanes.

Yeah, well I don't think you'd feel it's very irrelevant if you were plummeting 40 storeys from the WTC.

Again, commercial airliners aren't designed for killing people. Design is what matters, putting up emotional arguments does not help make your point.

I am saying that guns are designed to kill people. The numbers prove this.



We were talking about airliners which is different from airplanes in general. Besides, all airplanes aren't built for the specific purpose of killing, there are many other uses for them. Guns have a few hunting and target shooting models but the main purpose for them is killing unlike airplanes.



Again, commercial airliners aren't designed for killing people. Design is what matters, putting up emotional arguments does not help make your point.it seems like you are passionate (an emotion) about being anti-gun.

I am saying that guns are designed to kill people. The numbers prove this.



Again, commercial airliners aren't designed for killing people. Design is what matters, putting up emotional arguments does not help make your point.


1) Most handguns are designed for killing people, most rifles and shotguns are designed for killing animals, and are only effective at killing people incidentally.

2) This argument that because guns are "designed to kill people" they should be banned is itself an emotional argument.

"Guns are scary (designed to kill people, dangerous) therefore they should be banned" is not a rational argument, it is an emotional one.

I am saying that guns are designed to kill people. The numbers of guns that have a certain purpose is certainly relevant.





Only when it changes the case of your arguement to support you, right?

It still doesn't matter how many times you say it, still doesn;t make it true.

There must be many more hunters out there than I could ever have imagined if you are saying there are many more guns used to shoot at animals and targets than there are for guns designed to shoot at people. I must say that this sounds, well, untrue.

You've got to be kidding me. I'd say the vast majority of legal gun owners are actually hunters and frequent "sport shooters" (e.g. target competitions), but I guess that's just because I live in a more rural area than Cincinnati, where there are a lot of fields and woodland areas to take part in such activities.

Also, hunters and competition shooters often own more guns than self-protection owners. It's part of a hunter and shooter's hobby as opposed to a self-protection owner that really just needs one for his glovebox or one for her purse.

I'm against people that own guns that have no idea how to use them, which I would bet makes up the majority of self-protection owners. I feel that to own a gun one should display competence with given firearm.

Also, while legally owned firearms cause crime, these guns are registered (at least in my state) and all come with the first fired cartridge from the manufacturer. The information about this cartridge is on file with any number of government agencies, so if you're going to go out and shoot someone, pray they don't find the bullet or bullet casing or your life will become significantly more difficult.

Also, for the UK police, if it works for them it works for them. Our officers in the US carry guns but rarely use them. Sure, they draw them regularly as an aggressive means of crime prevention, but it usually manages problems before they start.

But, the UK sucks because they get better vehicles from America's own manufacturers than we do ourselves. Nobody in America would shell out for a Focus ST? Bullcrap.

:sniper: :gundge: :mp5: :D

I am saying that guns are designed to kill people.

N' I'm saying the turtle-men will take over one day. Neither of us is making a point by saying it.

We were talking about airliners which is different from airplanes in general.

Nope. Any aircraft is a weapon, because any aircraft can be used as such.

Airliners included.

Besides, all airplanes aren't built for the specific purpose of killing, there are many other uses for them. Guns have a few hunting and target shooting models but the main purpose for them is killing unlike airplanes.

Design is irrelevant. Both are weapons.


Again, commercial airliners aren't designed for killing people. Design is what matters, putting up emotional arguments does not help make your point.

Design is irrelevant. Both are weapons.

My argument is not emotional - I've made my argument already, and I am simply getting emotional because you are ignoring it and spouting nonsense.

You've got to be kidding me. I'd say the vast majority of legal gun owners are actually hunters and frequent "sport shooters" (e.g. target competitions), but I guess that's just because I live in a more rural area than Cincinnati, where there are a lot of fields and woodland areas to take part in such activities.

Also, hunters and competition shooters often own more guns than self-protection owners. It's part of a hunter and shooter's hobby as opposed to a self-protection owner that really just needs one for his glovebox or one for her purse...

Ultracia's trying to move the issue that just because xxx million ak-47s were made means that "most guns" are designed to kill people.

Some people here fail to realize that although an airplane or a car may both be inherently dangerous, they have an immediate utility for the general populace that a gun does not.

Furthermore, both airplanes and cars are not only difficult and expensive to get, you need to be licensed to use them. You are not permitted to use an airplane however you like or even fly wherever you like. Same is true for cars (particularly the flying bit, since I don't think cars are generally considered able to fly).

So, we have these two dangerous, yet very useful objects, and we've got a gun that has limited utility (in some instances, the utility is higher). Clearly, applying the same restrictions on guns as we do on cars and airplanes require that you get a license, which requires training and theoretical knowledge.

So, people might come up and say "But then they can limit who gets to have a gun!", yeah, so? Honestly, how many people do you know who can't drive a car?

Oh, and naturally, just like some people will use cars without a license, of course some people will use guns without a license. Generally, however, driving is safer because most people get the training.

it seems like you are passionate (an emotion) about being anti-gun.

"Guns are scary (designed to kill people, dangerous) therefore they should be banned" is not a rational argument, it is an emotional one.

I never said we should ban guns. I simply want people to admit that guns for the most part are meant for killing other people. People simply are jumping to conclusions.

I never said we should ban guns. I simply want people to admit that guns for the most part are meant for killing other people. People simply are jumping to conclusions.

And we keep wanting you to stop saying that "for the most part they are for killing people".

N' I'm saying the turtle-men will take over one day. Neither of us is making a point by saying it.

Here I thought I was stating something obvious in "guns kill" but apparently not.

Nope. Any aircraft is a weapon, because any aircraft can be used as such.

Airliners included.



Design is irrelevant. Both are weapons.




Design is irrelevant. Both are weapons.

My argument is not emotional - I've made my argument already, and I am simply getting emotional because you are ignoring it and spouting nonsense.

Well I don't mind repeating myself, it gets my postcount up after all. But I suppose I should ignore this kind of comeback from now on instead of participating in descending to a "yes it is, no it isn't" back and forth.

And we keep wanting you to stop saying that "for the most part they are for killing people".

Only put in the "most part" to avoid a response about the minority built for hunting and target shooting. Because yes, the xxx millions of AKs out there killing people are certainly guns and they are certainly killing people now aren't they?

Are you sure the irate husband doesn`t have a gun?

Yes. The chances of a random person in England having a gun is virtually nil. When they're illegal, only hardcore criminals and farmers tend to posess them. And nobody wants to do the farmer's wife.

secondly, you probably shouldn`t be doing someone`s wife anyways. some of us don`t take kindly to that kind of behavior and if he were to catch you i`m sure that a gun would be the least of your worries.

What if she doesn't tell you she's married? And whether it would be the least of your worries depends on who the husband is. If he can't shoot you, you're only really in trouble if he's a 200lb Muay Thai champion or something, and can catch you before you dive out the window.

as a matter of fact, my size coupled with my Irish temper, i could do the job with my bare hands.

Why do people feel the need for macho posturing on the internet? You could be a 10-foot daschund for all I care.

Only put in the "most part" to avoid a response about the minority built for hunting and target shooting. Because yes, the xxx millions of AKs out there killing people are certainly guns and they are certainly killing people now aren't they?

But since AK's are only one designed type, that does not mean that "guns are designed to kill. period."

Here I thought I was stating something obvious in "guns kill" but apparently not.

You've told us what you're going for. "I simply want people to admit..."

I want y'all to admit allegiance to the turtle-men.

Well I don't mind repeating myself, it gets my postcount up after all. But I suppose I should ignore this kind of comeback from now on instead of participating in descending to a "yes it is, no it isn't" back and forth.

It's not a comeback. It's a fact. An airplane is a weapon by the very DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

A weapon, again by DEFINITION, is not dependent on "design." it is "use."

It's not my fault you choose to selectively rewrite the english language. But yes, by all means ignore it when your 'arguments' are smashed to dust. ;)

You've told us what you're going for. "I simply want people to admit..."

I want y'all to admit allegiance to the turtle-men.

Can I keep my guns as long as they are used in TM service?

[QUOTE=Piresa;12486392]QUOTE]

Well in my state, to own a gun you have to have a background check to make sure you're not wanted for anything, etc.

That's just to buy it, but to carry it anywhere loaded (places where these gun crimes come into question), you must:

1. have a clean criminal history (no felonies, no sex offense convictions, etc).
2. never have been admitted to a mental health facility
3. pay a small fee
4. display some form of competence with the firearm, conceptual and practical, and display this certificate at the time of application for the firearm.

I know that's not much, but there is in fact a "gun license" if you want to carry it anywhere.

And, getting a drivers license is ridiculous, you're much safer in a room full of gun nuts then you are on most roadways. Drivers licenses in america are given away waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easily.

And pilots licenses, to get your PPL isn't that hard at all really, you can do it in a couple weeks, and you can fly whenever and wherever you want provided it's not restricted airspace for whatever reason.

So, yeah, you really don't need to be good at ANYTHING anymore to be allowed to own or do it, equal rights for everyone is not necessarily a good thing.

Can I keep my guns as long as they are used in TM service?

Hmm...They will consider it. But you must be of utmost proficiency.

You've told us what you're going for. "I simply want people to admit..."

I want y'all to admit allegiance to the turtle-men.

I don't want to make guns illegal so I don't need a turtle back to deflect a criminal's bullets.

*attempt to remember precise meaning of your earlier reference*

It's not a comeback. It's a fact. An airplane is a weapon by the very DEFINITION OF THE WORD.

A weapon, again by DEFINITION, is not dependent on "design." it is "use."

It's not my fault you choose to selectively rewrite the english language. But yes, by all means ignore it when your 'arguments' are smashed to dust. ;)

If at some point I said that these things aren't a weapon than I apologize for being unclear. In the end though guns are made to kill. It is their purpose. Airplanes purpose is not to kill. Simple as that. Anything else is simply drawing the argument down blind alleys to obscure this simple fact.

If at some point I said that these things aren't a weapon than I apologize for being unclear. In the end though guns are made to kill. It is their purpose. Airplanes purpose is not to kill. Simple as that. Anything else is simply drawing the argument down blind alleys to obscure this simple fact.

Once again. Purpose is irrelevant when use dominates reality.

What exactly is the point of your "simple fact?" You don't want to ban guns. You're willing to admit that they're weapons just like airliners. So... what are you arguing for? The sound of your voice?

No. I think you argue because you want to demonize guns. You're a gun ban advocate who's in the closet, making his little jabs in the hopes of establishing an argument later on. Well - shit or get off the pot, that's what I say.

Here, I'll make an argument for you, since you don't seem inclined to make one yourself. Guns are purposed to kill, therefore anyone who owns a gun has the intent to kill. Therefore gun ownership is equal to criminal intent and gun owners should be charged for intent to commit homicide. How's that work for you?

...to obscure this simple fact.

Uhhh...So?

Hmm...They will consider it. But you must be of utmost proficiency.

Qualified expert the last 2 years in the Reserves and regularly target shoot at home. Will supply own rifles and ammo.

If at some point I said that these things aren't a weapon than I apologize for being unclear. In the end though guns are made to kill. It is their purpose. Airplanes purpose is not to kill. Simple as that. Anything else is simply drawing the argument down blind alleys to obscure this simple fact.

And...?

Is there any significance at all to this?

What do your propose should follow from this 'realization'?

Is this trivial postcount++, or is there some implication to "guns are made to kill"?

Once again. Purpose is irrelevant when use dominates reality.

What exactly is the point of your "simple fact?" You don't want to ban guns. You're willing to admit that they're weapons just like airliners. So... what are you arguing for? The sound of your voice?

No. I think you argue because you want to demonize guns. You're a gun ban advocate who's in the closet, making his little jabs in the hopes of establishing an argument later on. Well - shit or get off the pot, that's what I say.

Here, I'll make an argument for you, since you don't seem inclined to make one yourself. Guns are purposed to kill, therefore anyone who owns a gun has the intent to kill. Therefore gun ownership is equal to criminal intent and gun owners should be charged for intent to commit homicide. How's that work for you?

I made a simple statement. Guns are designed to kill. That's it. No further elaboration is needed as I see it, the statement stands on its own. And I certainly wouldn't mind demonizing guns. I would love it if everyone turned in their guns but it doesn't mean I want to ban them though, there are other things I don't agree with but it doesn't mean I want to make them illegal either. Simple disapproval is too much for you?

While I think that having a gun can make you turn to violence quicker it doesn't mean that you are actively considering killing anyone. That is pretty obvious. It doesn't change what the gun is designed for though which is all I was trying to get through.

I made a simple statement. Guns are designed to kill. That's it. No further elaboration is needed as I see it, the statement stands on its own. And I certainly wouldn't mind demonizing guns. I would love it if everyone turned in their guns but it doesn't mean I want to ban them though, there are other things I don't agree with but it doesn't mean I want to make them illegal either. Simple disapproval is too much for you?

While I think that having a gun can make you turn to violence quicker it doesn't mean that you are actively considering killing anyone. That is pretty obvious. It doesn't change what the gun is designed for though which is all I was trying to get through.

And since your statement is still false, there's no further elaboration needed.

And since your statement is still false, there's no further elaboration needed.

So you say. We really do have nothing further to say it seems.

So you say. We really do have nothing further to say it seems.

As long as you keep repeating yourself, I'll keep stating that you're wrong.

So you say. We really do have nothing further to say it seems.

And...?

Is there any significance at all to this?

What do your propose should follow from this 'realization'?

Is this trivial postcount++, or is there some implication to "guns are made to kill"?

And...?

Is there any significance at all to this?

What do your propose should follow from this 'realization'?

Is this trivial postcount++, or is there some implication to "guns are made to kill"?

I gave my opinion on what people should do with guns above. Perhaps though, you should take your advice on +1 posts and not copy and paste a previous post.

eh... swords are better ^.^

Remember that it was the use of guns that bought you (at a very heavy cost) your privilege to make this post about them.

I would challenge anyone who feels that private ownership of guns only promotes crime to place a sign in their yard and/or front window that says:

"Proud Owner of a Gun Free Home"

If you look it is easy to find what guns do to crime rates.
In Canada it is almost impossible to legally own small arms. The homicide rate is 3 times higher per capita than the US. (kitchen knife is the #1 murder weapon)

In the UK where even the police can't get guns without special privilege the violent crime rate is 17 times higher per capita than the US.

In Australia guns were removed from the public and crime rates doubled within just one year.

The State of Florida passed a "shall carry" law (if you pass the background check you may have a concealed carry license with no other hassles) and crime rates dropped in half within one year.

Give up your right to own the means to defend yourself and you give up your safety. Remember that the police are only guaranteed to show up in time to write a report.

If you don't want to own a gun then don't, but, you could be a little more grateful to the responsible citizens who do and make your world a little safer.

I am. Of course airplanes are weapons. To think otherwise is to ignore not only 9/11, but the kamikazes of WWII, and common sense.



Ladies and Gentlemen. if indeed there are any of either of you reading this, should pay attention to the fact that the Kamikaze was not first and foremost a suicide bomber like those currently being employed within terrorist organizations. The Kamikaze referes to a hurricane that destroyed the entire invading mongol invasion force that threatened to capture Japan. It swept across the ocean and destroyed only the fleet, leaving Japan completely unscathed, hence why it is a Divine Wind. The reason the pilots crashed into the aircraft carriers (Which you could have stopped by the way america, but you chose not to, like we chose not to stop Coventry) was because of their samurai dedication to their masters. It was a willing death, merely an extension of what they could do for their masters. Read Yamamoto Tsunetomo's Hagakure, and you will see what i mean.

Secondly, as for the petty squabblings that you keep purporting regarding bows and crossbows, allow me to expound. The longest effective range of a Welsh Long Bow was just over 250 yards. A trained archer, for example at Agincourt, was able to fire six aimed shots a minute, or 12 unaimed shots. How many shots can you fire in a minute with a handgun? Bow and arrows, even today, with the 75 pound draw, (Longbows were over a 200 pounds) take substantialy longer than that to fire, because we aren't training on the Village Green for over an hour every week.

A crossbow takes considerably longer to reload and fires a shorter distance, but does do much more damage. At the Siege of Dover Castle, there is a record of a bolt piercing leg armour, the leg, the other side of the leg and the horse. But it still takes over a minute to fire one shot.

The longest recorded confirmed kill by a sniper is by two canadians in I beleive it was Afghanistan, at well over 2000m. The fastest firing handgun in the world was, to my knowledge the M111 (I may be wrong on this) and it could fire 1600 rounds a minute. these are not the same things people, they are lower technologies. Besides, how many people in North America own a bow and arrow? Im guessing substantially fewer than gun owners (Total gun sales in america number 4 guns to every person) because they can't fire as far, as fast, require advanced tuition to aim and construct (Standard archery bows come in three pieces, and then you have to string them) rather than the very simple interface taht samuel colt developed:

1. Point
2. Click

A much worthier comparison would be a musket versus a bow and arrow.

As for knives, the first stone tools of recognizable form (acheulen technology) were used to cut meat AFTER it had been killed. Personally, i would not want to be on the african plain armed with nothing but a knife.

Discuss.

However it is good to see we have stopped all this silly 'guns are defensive' bull. Go team!

well twisted; but if there were no legal guns then criminals wouldnt be able to get there illegal mits on them. would they?

Really? Then where are those guns coming from in Taiwan and Japan where private ownership of guns is illegal. The Heishehui and the Yakuza in Taiwan, Japan as well as in Hong Kong and even in the PRC seem to have no problems getting their hands on weapons. Do you think the UK or the US would be any better at stopping the illegal gun trade than say an undemocratic regime like the PRC?

The only thing making weapons illegal would do would be to unarm those that are not criminals and leave the criminals still with their weapons. You might wish to note that in the US those areas that have the most strict gun control laws have the highest crime rates (e.g. Washington, D.C.). And when Scotland and Australia made legal gun ownership more difficult, crime went up.

The thing that worries criminals most is encountering an armed civilian during his crime. Because unlike police, we are more likely to shoot to kill.

The police will order them to stop, drop their weapon, etc. I on the other hand will aim for center mass and empty the magazine. If you were the criminal, who would you rather face? Me or the police?

More guns, less crime. If you are interested, there is a book on the subject with that exact titile.

:mp5:

I firmly believe that all sane, non-criminal people should be given military equipment and training, including automatic rifles, at taxpayer expense.

Switzerland does this, and as a result, they have virtually no crime and they haven't been invaded for the past 200 years.

They also make fine chocolate.

Oh yes, an armed society is a happy society.
Personally I'd be a lot happier if the state funded nuclear belts for people, so if they're shot or stabbed, they will explode and take half the city with them: that's what I call deterrence. I'm sure the crime rate will drop very quickly... though admittedly along with the population.

If at some point I said that these things aren't a weapon than I apologize for being unclear. In the end though guns are made to kill. It is their purpose. Airplanes purpose is not to kill. Simple as that. Anything else is simply drawing the argument down blind alleys to obscure this simple fact.

Guns aren't meant to kill no more than a sword is meant to kill or an arrow or a crossbow bolt. It depends what you aim and fire at.

In high school I was on a rifle team, the guns we fired were designed to fire .22 short rounds into paper targets fifty feet away. There are also shotguns for trap. So to say ALL guns are designed to kill is an incorrect statement. Back to the original point. The point was that guns were bad and banning them would be good. But as I pointed out, there are countries like Taiwan that have a 100% ban on firearms except for the military and police, but criminals still get their hands on firearms, now don't they? Is Taiwan less dangerous than the US? Yes, very much so. But I'd bet Taiwan would be safter even if guns were legal and the US still would be more dangerous even if all civilian ownership of guns were outlawed.

I firmly believe that all sane, non-criminal people should be given military equipment and training, including automatic rifles, at taxpayer expense.

Switzerland does this, and as a result, they have virtually no crime and they haven't been invaded for the past 200 years.

They also make fine chocolate.

1.<sarcasm>Ah yes, the swiss. A well known militaristic peoples world famous for their highly effective army.*<sarcasm> They also only have one magazine each and are strictly controlled so that every bullet must be handed in and checked every year. This is done INSTEAD of a standing army becuas of their small population IN CASE of invasion. They are not simply givien an automatic rifle and told to go out and vigilante the streets. Personally, I beileve that Non criminal people may simply have not been caught yet. There is that possibility, but also this shows you have no faith in the idea of redemption and penacne. After all, to err is human, to forgive divine.

2. As for the above quote by the learned sir who aims at the centre mass, has it ever occured to you that the police seeks non lethal means because everyone has the right to a fair trial and because they are not judge jury and executioner. Did you ever consider that as you are emptying your (I'm guessing) 12 9mm bullets into your 'criminal' that he has not been proven guilty, that you are not in possession of the facts and that you may actually be targeting an innocent?

3. Of coruse crime is going to go up if you make something illegal jackass. If you dont want any crime make everything legal. Its not the violent crime numbers you should be watching, its GUN CRIMES!

*Saying that though they do have a very small but very well trained navy.

US statehood should be granted to Taiwan.

And Israel.

And New Zealand.

And England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland.

And the 13 provinces and territories of Canada.

And the 31 states of Mexico.

And the 6 states and various territories of Australia.

And the 7 prefectures of Japan.

And the 80-something krays, oblasts, and other components of the Russian Federation.

And...

Of course firearms are by their nature evil things. Other than a few models made for hunting, all they are made for are to kill other people. Hardly something that has an useful purpose but to make someone feel powerful, like they can do anything they want. People can make whatever argument they wish on why someone should be allowed to own a gun but it comes down to that simple fact, guns have no useful purpose but to cause conflict.

Really? How many times each year does the defensive use of firearms prevent a crime? Often without even firing the weapon.

A few years ago just north of Atlanta, a rapist abducted a woman, her car that he was driving was hit by a cement truck. The woman died. As the rapist tried to escape, a man had witnessed the couple struggling before the fatal wreck. He gave chase, the rapist turned and displayed a weapon, the man giving chase used his own weapon and shot the rapist dead where he stood. :mp5:

Now how many others would have been raped or worse if not for the hero that luckily had his weapon with him? Would making guns illegal have stopped the rapist from getting a weapon? Last I heard rape was illegal as was having a weapon by a convicted felon.

And on a happy note, not only is the rapist dead, but the shooting saved the state a good amount of expense from court costs, jail costs and the like.

More criminal stories should end like this.

"Criminal shot dead as he attempted to...." insert crime of your choice.

Of course firearms are by their nature evil things. Other than a few models made for hunting, all they are made for are to kill other people. Hardly something that has an useful purpose but to make someone feel powerful, like they can do anything they want. People can make whatever argument they wish on why someone should be allowed to own a gun but it comes down to that simple fact, guns have no useful purpose but to cause conflict.

US statehood should be granted to Taiwan.

And Israel.

And New Zealand.

And England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland.

And the 13 provinces and territories of Canada.

And the 31 states of Mexico.

And the 6 states and various territories of Australia.

And the 7 prefectures of Japan.

And the 80-something krays, oblasts, and other components of the Russian Federation.

And...


Well, Taiwan is better off I think without US statehood. There is a very small organization in Taiwan called "Club 51" that advocates US statehood for Taiwan though. There are 47 prefectures of Japan. Did you forget to add the 4?

Everyone in here are total morons. Of course we need guns. Does everybody need guns? No. Do we need to ban guns? No. Do we need to worship guns (i.e. pro-gun nuts)? No. Do need SOME control over the sale and distribution of guns? Absolutely. So all of you cry-baby anti-gun pansies need to suck it up and realize guns are here to stay, and all of you fanatic pro-gun nuts need to quick stroking your guns in your basement and realize that not everybody wants a gun.


- Also on the zombie discussion you all need to read "The Zombie Survival Guide". Remember machetes don't need reloading.

There are 47 prefectures of Japan. Did you forget to add the 4?

*consults the Wiki*

My bad.

I guess Japan could be admitted as a single state, then.

3. Of coruse crime is going to go up if you make something illegal jackass. If you dont want any crime make everything legal. Its not the violent crime numbers you should be watching, its GUN CRIMES

Please correct me if I am wrong. If I make say soda illegal, rapes will go up as a result? That seems to be your implication in the statement of "crime is going to go up if you make something illegal." If guns are made illegal and then the number of rapes increase isn't that a strong indicator that there is at least a link there. Why should I look simply a gun crime? Who cares if gun crime went down if say murder increased by 1000% due to stabbings.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily empty the magazine. I'd cease fire when the subject was on the ground and not moving and thus no longer a threat. As for weapons, for home defense, I favor a 10-ga pump shotgun with full choke loaded with double alt buck. First there is no sound like a pump shotgun loading the shell into the chamber. The sound alone is enough to convince most to seek other prey. And second once hit where he should be hit--center mass--he is probably not going to be in any condition to continue being a threat.

Don't you all realize that most burglaries happen when you aren't home? And there for all of your guns will get stolen anyways.

Don't you all realize that most burglaries happen when you aren't home? And there for all of your guns will get stolen anyways.

That's what pit bulls are for.

Guns are for wimps. Swords are where it's at. To shoot a gun, you merely have to pull a trigger, but to kill someone with a sword, you have to physically thrust it into them...

- Also on the zombie discussion you all need to read "The Zombie Survival Guide". Remember machetes don't need reloading.
I want a Lobo.

Don't you all realize that most burglaries happen when you aren't home? And there for all of your guns will get stolen anyways.

Depends on where you are. "Hot" burglaries are more common in areas where there are few firearms.

*consults the Wiki*

My bad.

I guess Japan could be admitted as a single state, then.

Japan has 127 million people (40% or so of the US population). You'd at least have to make it four states--Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu and Hokkaido and probably more--such as making Honshu five states (Kanto, Chugoku, etc) and Okinawa as a seperate state from the four home islands. Then the US could threaten to nuke Russia if it didn't give us back the four islands of the Southern Kurils: Kunashiri, Iturup, Etorofu and Shikotan. Once we got those we could make them part of the state of Hokkaido (like the Aleutians relationship to Alaska) or maybe its own state.

1.<sarcasm>Ah yes, the swiss. A well known militaristic peoples world famous for their highly effective army.*<sarcasm> They also only have one magazine each and are strictly controlled so that every bullet must be handed in and checked every year. This is done INSTEAD of a standing army becuas of their small population IN CASE of invasion. They are not simply givien an automatic rifle and told to go out and vigilante the streets.

*Saying that though they do have a very small but very well trained navy.

All true. But the Swiss experience is still the best example of the simple truth that gun prevalence and crime rates, violent crime rates, and gun crime rates are not connected.

Don't you all realize that most burglaries happen when you aren't home? And there for all of your guns will get stolen anyways.

Everyone in here are total morons. Of course we need guns. Does everybody need guns? No. Do we need to ban guns? No. Do we need to worship guns (i.e. pro-gun nuts)? No. Do need SOME control over the sale and distribution of guns? Absolutely. So all of you cry-baby anti-gun pansies need to suck it up and realize guns are here to stay, and all of you fanatic pro-gun nuts need to quick stroking your guns in your basement and realize that not everybody wants a gun.

Its a bloody good point. And yes, everything in moderation. Im not disputing the fact that guns are here to stay, i own one myself, what i am disputing is that it is right to use them for anything other than target shooting.

Also, hypothetically Qin Wang, you hear a noise downstairs, you grab your 10 gauge shotty and sneak downstairs. Seeing someone moving around your kitchen, what do you do? Shout a warning, or fire that all important first shot?

Secondly, in Britian, you have rules for Just Force. If he punches you, you can punch him. If he draws a knife, you are allowed defend yourself with a knife, if he draws a gun, you may, if you have the option use his gun (retrieving yours from the locked cabinets constitutes premeditation and therefore a murder charge) But simply blowing him away because he is on your property is an excessive reaction. You are not exempt from the legal process and everyone still has the right to a fair trial and not to be executed by a stranger because he was caught looking guilty.

Violent crimes include everything from assualt to murder. Violent crime numbers may well go up without guns, but there is an extremely good chance that the person will live if they are punched or stabbed over than if they were shot with a shotgun. Meaning they can be arrested, tried and rehabilitiated. (By the way, that is the position of your government)

The point i was trying to make about more crimes going up because of more laws being enforced is simple fact. I am drinking a 'soda' right now. If you make them illegal, i am criminal, ergo, crime numbers have gone up. make guns illegal and over time, gun crimes will come down. Because that is all you can do, work on one thing at a time. There may be raises in other areas, but there will be a drop in shootings, which is what the law aims to acheive. No-one passes a law hoping the situation gets worse.


Guns fro the military and specialist police forces only. They are the only ones that NEED them. Personally, i find weapons only escalate a situation.

Guns are for wimps. Swords are where it's at. To shoot a gun, you merely have to pull a trigger, but to kill someone with a sword, you have to physically thrust it into them...


I want a Lobo.

I have a Katana and a Tanto as well.

Oh and when I am not at home. I have to rely on my alarm system.

All true. But the Swiss experience is still the best example of the simple truth that gun prevalence and crime rates, violent crime rates, and gun crime rates are not connected.

ANd the OP's rant is not exactly true either. The ammo that's accounted for is the military issue case they're given. They're encouraged and subsidized by the Gov't to purchase and use more in training and competitions.

Note that they haven't been invaded in a looong time.

Snippage


Guns fro the military and specialist police forces only. They are the only ones that NEED them. Personally, i find weapons only escalate a situation.

Ah, a police state based on your personal opinion. Gotcha.

ANd the OP's rant is not exactly true either. The ammo that's accounted for is the military issue case they're given. They're encouraged and subsidized by the Gov't to purchase and use more in training and competitions.

Note that they haven't been invaded in a looong time.

Well, reasonably, we have to put a nice chunk of that down to the national terrain. It's hard to prosecute a campaign at a 45 degree angle...:D

But anyway, I don't doubt that training ammo is easy to obtain. There's no point having ever male citizen a trained rifleman if they can't kep their skills sharp.

Well, reasonably, we have to put a nice chunk of that down to the national terrain. It's hard to prosecute a campaign at a 45 degree angle...:D

But anyway, I don't doubt that training ammo is easy to obtain. There's no point having ever male citizen a trained rifleman if they can't kep their skills sharp.


Especially when there's trained marksmen picking off your troops at every step.

Guns fro the military and specialist police forces only. They are the only ones that NEED them. Personally, i find weapons only escalate a situation.
When I moved to Georgia, the first place we lived was the city of Kennesaw. The city passed an interesting law in 1982. They required that the head of each household possess a firearm for the protection of that family.

You know what? In the ensuing 25 years, there have been an average of 0.19 murders per year. Crimes against persons dropped 74% the first year and have been falling ever since. Facts prove that an armed population reduces crime.

When I moved to Georgia, the first place we lived was the city of Kennesaw. The city passed an interesting law in 1982. They required that the head of each household possess a firearm for the protection of that family.

You know what? In the ensuing 25 years, there have been an average of 0.19 murders per year. Crimes against persons dropped 74% the first year and have been falling ever since. Facts prove that an armed population reduces crime.

Not to mention the fact that the population increased dramatically over the period.

Its a bloody good point. And yes, everything in moderation. Im not disputing the fact that guns are here to stay, i own one myself, what i am disputing is that it is right to use them for anything other than target shooting.

Also, hypothetically Qin Wang, you hear a noise downstairs, you grab your 10 gauge shotty and sneak downstairs. Seeing someone moving around your kitchen, what do you do? Shout a warning, or fire that all important first shot?

Secondly, in Britian, you have rules for Just Force. If he punches you, you can punch him. If he draws a knife, you are allowed defend yourself with a knife, if he draws a gun, you may, if you have the option use his gun (retrieving yours from the locked cabinets constitutes premeditation and therefore a murder charge) But simply blowing him away because he is on your property is an excessive reaction. You are not exempt from the legal process and everyone still has the right to a fair trial and not to be executed by a stranger because he was caught looking guilty.

Violent crimes include everything from assualt to murder. Violent crime numbers may well go up without guns, but there is an extremely good chance that the person will live if they are punched or stabbed over than if they were shot with a shotgun. Meaning they can be arrested, tried and rehabilitiated. (By the way, that is the position of your government)

The point i was trying to make about more crimes going up because of more laws being enforced is simple fact. I am drinking a 'soda' right now. If you make them illegal, i am criminal, ergo, crime numbers have gone up. make guns illegal and over time, gun crimes will come down. Because that is all you can do, work on one thing at a time. There may be raises in other areas, but there will be a drop in shootings, which is what the law aims to acheive. No-one passes a law hoping the situation gets worse.


Guns fro the military and specialist police forces only. They are the only ones that NEED them. Personally, i find weapons only escalate a situation.

First, I'd give a warning by chambering the round. If the person was there to do harm and made any move that I deemed as a threat, I would fire and if I am lucky, kill him.

Second, unlike the UK which doesn't even have enough spine to stop Iranian terrorists from capturing them--in most states in the US you have no obligation to retreat inside your own house. If someone is inside by breaking in you can simply blow them away. Georgia where I live has now extended this to the outside world. You have no obligation to retreat if you are under threat.

Third, if a criminal is stabbed or beat instead of shot he has a better chance at living, going to trial, etc. I shed no tears for dead criminals. If a criminal is killed by a store owner or home owner as that criminal tried to steal, rob, etc. all the better from my point of view.

Your claim that gun crimes will go down if guns are outlawed is simply not backed up by evidence in the real world. Gun crime is very high in Washington, DC and it is impossible to buy a weapon there. Yes, they buy them in Gerogia and take them there. But cocaine is illegal too and you can't buy cocaine legally in Georgia, but you can still find cocaine in DC, now can't you? If guns are banned what makes you think criminals still can't get them. As I said, criminals still get them in Japan and Taiwan don't they?

And finally. It is perfectly right to use deadly force with a firearm to protect life or property from person that has no problem taking either.

Dead criminals are a good thing.

When I moved to Georgia, the first place we lived was the city of Kennesaw. The city passed an interesting law in 1982. They required that the head of each household possess a firearm for the protection of that family.

You know what? In the ensuing 25 years, there have been an average of 0.19 murders per year. Crimes against persons dropped 74% the first year and have been falling ever since. Facts prove that an armed population reduces crime.

Did they also pass out banjo to yall backward ass hicks?

Did they also pass out banjo to yall backward ass hicks?

Alright. A pathetic attempt at an insult when the evidence proves you wrong. You'll do well on NSG.

Ah, a police state based on your personal opinion. Gotcha.

So am i to understand britain is a police state. thats funny because i thought we had the best and most unbiased media in the world, as well as what is obviously a very affective general attitude towards guns.

our army and certain members of the police force are very highly trained with firearms. for example if you want to become a police marksmen you have to take a part exam, a practical and a psychological. you take the practical wich deals with how to use a weapon as many times as are necassery, much like a driving test, but you can only fail the psychological test once. these marksmen are also reassesed every few years to check that they are still fit for service.

we respect the gun, and the right people that we can trust have them. and for the most part its a very good system. we are the third largest manufecturer of guns on the planet. i i used to deliver gun parts to a factory in the black country, but we do as a rule live without guns in our every day lives. and we dont feel any worse off for it.

please tell me were all fascists again and dictators again.

So am i to understand britain is a police state. thats funny because i thought we had the best and most unbiased media in the world, as well as what is obviously a very affective general attitude towards guns.

our army and certain members of the police force are very highly trained with firearms. for example if you want to become a police marksmen you have to take a part exam, a practical and a psychological. you take the practical wich deals with how to use a weapon as many times as are necassery, much like a driving test, but you can only fail the psychological test once. these marksmen are also reassesed every few years to check that they are still fit for service.

we respect the gun, and the right people that we can trust have them. and for the most part its a very good system. we are the third largest manufecturer of guns on the planet. i i used to deliver gun parts to a factory in the black country, but we do as a rule live without guns in our every day lives. and we dont feel any worse off for it.

please tell me were all fascists again and dictators again.

Look at the camera on the street, the legislation to monitor all vehicular travel, the attempts to ban knives, the parents putting body armor on their kids, the abuses of people by the authorities who try and defend themselves from crime, and keep telling me things aren't going bad.

Third largest manufacturer? Really? Show that one.

Not to mention the fact that the population increased dramatically over the period.

I live just west of there and we average 1 murder a year out 100,000 people. Another well armed Southern county. And the rapist that was shot and killed I posted about before was in Acworth on US 41 and Lake Acworth which is just north of Kennesaw. We don't put up with criminals down here. I bet if this guy had been in the UK 1) he wouldn't have had a gun at all and 2) if he did, he'd be charged with murder or some other nonsense for doing all of us a great service.

FYI, he was not charged with any crime. The case was handed to a grand jury and they rightfully failed to indict him for anything. They should have given him a medal afterwards, no word on that though.

Japan has 127 million people (40% or so of the US population). You'd at least have to make it four states--Kyushu, Shikoku, Honshu and Hokkaido and probably more--such as making Honshu five states (Kanto, Chugoku, etc) and Okinawa as a seperate state from the four home islands.

Why the fuck would we have to do any of that? Nothing in the Constitution places any limits on how large a state can be.

Why the fuck would we have to do any of that? Nothing in the Constitution places any limits on how large a state can be.

But Japan would then have maybe 200 house districts and thus a very big influence on who the President would be. If you broke it up into say 10 states, the power would not be concentrated into one political entity.

Second, unlike the UK which doesn't even have enough spine to stop Iranian terrorists from capturing them--in most states in the US you have no obligation to retreat inside your own house. If someone is inside by breaking in you can simply blow them away. Georgia where I live has now extended this to the outside world. You have no obligation to retreat if you are under threat.

ok this is really off debate now. and totally out of line. but what would you prefer a knee jerk reaction by us that could set off world war three?

we in britain have a pretty good track record when it comes to looking after our own, falklands anyone? but we dont swank around makling promises we dont intend to keep either. unlike a particular spineless action made by a certain nation at the end of the gulf war when a promise was made to the kurds that if they rose up against sadam that they would have the full support of the US army.

as i recall they did attempt an uprising at wich point the americans fucked off and left them to get massacered by mr hussein. i think to be honest the fact that there is little crime in an armed neighbour hood has little to do with respect for each other and more to do with people living in fear of getting shot by one another.

spineless, say it again and ill list more arguments than your countries history could fit.

:mad: fuming a bit, xenaphobic insults arent cool.

So am i to understand britain is a police state. thats funny because i thought we had the best and most unbiased media in the world, as well as what is obviously a very affective general attitude towards guns.

our army and certain members of the police force are very highly trained with firearms.

The BBC is probably the most biased news outlet on the entire planet. Well, I guess maybe the CCTV (China Central TV) might be just a tad more so. As for your military, if they are trained well in the use of arms, they seemed to have forgot how to turn off the safety catch and fire when Iranian terrorists decide to board them.

i think to be honest the fact that there is little crime in an armed neighbour hood has little to do with respect for each other and more to do with people living in fear of getting shot by one another.



Or maybe it's just the criminals living in fear of getting shot. All of my neighors own firearms and I have no fear of them at all. Of course I have no plans of breaking into their homes.

Did they also pass out banjo to yall backward ass hicks?

Kennesaw is far from backwards, and I'd much rather live in a plce like that that is actually safe to walk the streets at night than more "progressive" places--like most areas in the city of Atlanta--where you take your life into your own hands once the sun sets.

I don't like guns, nor will I ever likely own one, but I will affirm other people's right to own them so long as they do not damage other people or property with them.

I don't like guns, nor will I ever likely own one, but I will affirm other people's right to own them so long as they do not damage other people or property with them.

I can respect that opinion.

The BBC is probably the most biased news outlet on the entire planet. Well, I guess maybe the CCTV (China Central TV) might be just a tad more so. As for your military, if they are trained well in the use of arms, they seemed to have forgot how to turn off the safety catch and fire when Iranian terrorists decide to board them.

explain

ok this is really off debate now. and totally out of line. but what would you prefer a knee jerk reaction by us that could set off world war three?

we in britain have a pretty good track record when it comes to looking after our own, falklands anyone? but we dont swank around makling promises we dont intend to keep either. unlike a particular spineless action made by a certain nation at the end of the gulf war when a promise was made to the kurds that if they rose up against sadam that they would have the full support of the US army.

as i recall they did attempt an uprising at wich point the americans fucked off and left them to get massacered by mr hussein. i think to be honest the fact that there is little crime in an armed neighbour hood has little to do with respect for each other and more to do with people living in fear of getting shot by one another.

spineless, say it again and ill list more arguments than your countries history could fit.

:mad: fuming a bit, xenaphobic insults arent cool.


Not a fan of the US either. But to defend the devil, at the end of the Gulf War, the statement by Bush was meant to the Iraqi military. It was hoped that members of the Iraqi military would overthrow Saddam in a coup. It was not meant for the Kurds (which an independent state would cause problems for US' NATO friend Turkey) or the Shia to try to overthrow Saddam.

In the ceasefire with the US, the US gave permission for the Iraqis to use helicopters--it was hoped these would be used to transport the Iraqi military during the coup--instead it was used to mow down the Kurds and the Shia. But the US NEVER had any intention of siding with the Kurds or the pro-Iranian Shia to overthrow Saddam.

The US also left (ran away is a better term) its allies in South Vietnam. The spineless congress cut off all funds to the government and guranteed that government would fall--leading to the deaths of millions--something liberals like Hanoi Jane seem to forget. The US also abandoned the ROC in 1948 in its conflict with Mao as well. The US is good at running when things get too hot.

So believe me--I have plenty of venom for the US as well.

Me, xenophobic? Hardly. Not a fan of Europe for sure, but hardly xenophobic.

But Japan would then have maybe 200 house districts and thus a very big influence on who the President would be. If you broke it up into say 10 states, the power would not be concentrated into one political entity.

How would breaking Japan into a dozen chunks change the number of House seats that it gets?

Look at the camera on the street, the legislation to monitor all vehicular travel, the attempts to ban knives, the parents putting body armor on their kids, the abuses of people by the authorities who try and defend themselves from crime, and keep telling me things aren't going bad.

Third largest manufacturer? Really? Show that one.

cameras in city centres are proven to reduce all kinds of crime by their very presence. they are not big brother.

the proposed vehicle legislation is to work against global warming. plus a few less tits in massive cars taking up all the parking spaces isnt too bad is it.

the knife bans are very specific and only stop people walking round with the ability to gut a cow, knives that can be used as tools, eg swiss army knives are fine.

the body armour thing i have never heard of, so it cant be too wide spread.

and the only rights we take away from our citizens is the right to kill each other over a stolen telly. read an above article by seiwwupp abnd youll see what our rights are in our homes.

i havent been shot, threatened by a gun, mugged or raped as yet. i was once ran over by a big fucking car once though.

How would breaking Japan into a dozen chunks change the number of House seats that it gets?

What he's saying is that it wouldn't be a centralized voting block and that splitting it up would encourage the districts to differentiate their opinions. whether that would happen is debatable but.....

explain

Its coverage of the United States can hardly be called "fair and balanced" to use a phrase, but then again neither is the CBC (Canada) or here in the US, Radio Beijing--I mean National Public Radio (NPR). The Communist News Network here in the US is pretty bad as well (CNN). They even showed a terrorist supplied video of a US troop being shot by a terrorist in Iraq.

But there is lyric from an old Blues song that says "Fish don't know he wet." And the BBC and CNN wouldn't know fair reporting if it hit them on the head.

cameras in city centres are proven to reduce all kinds of crime by their very presence. they are not big brother.

the proposed vehicle legislation is to work against global warming. plus a few less tits in massive cars taking up all the parking spaces isnt too bad is it.

the knife bans are very specific and only stop people walking round with the ability to gut a cow, knives that can be used as tools, eg swiss army knives are fine.

the body armour thing i have never heard of, so it cant be too wide spread.

and the only rights we take away from our citizens is the right to kill each other over a stolen telly. read an above article by seiwwupp abnd youll see what our rights are in our homes.

i havent been shot, threatened by a gun, mugged or raped as yet. i was once ran over by a big fucking car once though.

Uh, huh. All the cameras have done is pushed crime away from certain areas. Not reduced it.

You believe that vehicle monitoring is benign all you want.

The knife ban is just stupid, feel good legislation.

The body-armor thing has been on the BBC news recently. Due to violent crime increases in urban areas. W/ cameras.

You have so many rights in your homes, farmers can't evict travellers off of private property.

Just because YOU haven't encountered crime, doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I say shut up to all you people who believe in gun control. If you are afraid someone will shoot you, move, or buy a gun yourself.

cameras in city centres are proven to reduce all kinds of crime by their very presence. they are not big brother.

the proposed vehicle legislation is to work against global warming. plus a few less tits in massive cars taking up all the parking spaces isnt too bad is it.

the knife bans are very specific and only stop people walking round with the ability to gut a cow, knives that can be used as tools, eg swiss army knives are fine.

the body armour thing i have never heard of, so it cant be too wide spread.

and the only rights we take away from our citizens is the right to kill each other over a stolen telly. read an above article by seiwwupp abnd youll see what our rights are in our homes.

i havent been shot, threatened by a gun, mugged or raped as yet. i was once ran over by a big fucking car once though.

Just because you like being treated as a slave doesn't make it right.

cameras in city centres are proven to reduce all kinds of crime by their very presence. they are not big brother.

the proposed vehicle legislation is to work against global warming. plus a few less tits in massive cars taking up all the parking spaces isnt too bad is it.

the knife bans are very specific and only stop people walking round with the ability to gut a cow, knives that can be used as tools, eg swiss army knives are fine.

the body armour thing i have never heard of, so it cant be too wide spread.

and the only rights we take away from our citizens is the right to kill each other over a stolen telly. read an above article by seiwwupp abnd youll see what our rights are in our homes.

i havent been shot, threatened by a gun, mugged or raped as yet. i was once ran over by a big fucking car once though.

Tell me something. Will eliminating every large SUV, pickup truck etc from the planet stop China from producing the thousands of coal-fired power plants they plan to produce in the next few decades? Be happy about "doing something about global warming" but be aware that nothing you do will have the slightest impact on global temps. Assuming global warming is real and caused by man--unless you have a total collaspe in the Indian and Chinese economy--taking a few SUVs off the road will have little impact.

Also, if someone breaks into a house to steal a TV--they deserve to be shot in my view.

Hopefully it will be a fatal one.

The only reason that guns should be legal is so that citizens can protect themselves from others with guns or other means of violence.
That doesn't make them good. They are a necessary evil.

Gun enthusiasts are either those that enjoy the cruel "sport" of hunting or men and women with Freudian issues.

What he's saying is that it wouldn't be a centralized voting block and that splitting it up would encourage the districts to differentiate their opinions. whether that would happen is debatable but.....

Exactly. There would still be 538 electors, but the 200+ would not be in a single state, but 10. Kanto would still be very large and Hokkaido or Okinawa very small, but say Kanto has 60 electors, better than having 200.

The only reason that guns should be legal is so that citizens can protect themselves from others with guns or other means of violence.
That doesn't make them good. They are a necessary evil.

Gun enthusiasts are either those that enjoy the cruel "sport" of hunting or men and women with Freudian issues.

Why do you assume hunting is cruel? Every hunter I know of does his best to kill with a single round. Compare this to say, a big cat or a wolf pack - the animal will often still be alive when the feeding begins.

Gun enthusiasts are either those that enjoy the cruel "sport" of hunting or men and women with Freudian issues.

Right. Whatever.

Just because you like being treated as a slave doesn't make it right.



this is ridiculous, the uk has some of the best civil rights in the world. were also a responsible nation with a limited landmass, so vehicle legislation is a good idea. the thing is were not brought up to believe that we are the greatest country in the world, we question our government at every turn.

plus i think calling us slaves is pretty ironic seeing as we were the first to ban slavery. a gesture wich many would have said at the time wouldnt help to stop slavery in the world. just like we are working against global warming now, we lead by example and we do it well. random invasions arent our style.
Granada.

Why do you assume hunting is cruel? Every hunter I know of does his best to kill with a single round. Compare this to say, a big cat or a wolf pack - the animal will often still be alive when the feeding begins.

And less cruel than having a deer smacked by a 1500 pound car at 60 MPH.

Men by and large can subdue most women due to size issues. And a knife can do a good amount of damage, so guns aren't just to protect yourself against other people with guns.

If Ray Lewis :gundge: (of the Baltimore Ravens) and his posse were after me, I'd fare better if I was carying my gun and fare better than the poor saps that ended up dead when they had the misfortune of encountering Ray and his buddies here in Atlanta after the Super Bowl one year.

Not to mention the fact that the population increased dramatically over the period.
Tell me...That's why we moved out to my wife's family farm.

Why do you assume hunting is cruel? Every hunter I know of does his best to kill with a single round. Compare this to say, a big cat or a wolf pack - the animal will often still be alive when the feeding begins.

however the animals life wont be wasted and the predater animals wont have to kill animal flocks like sheep to get a meal. for the most part hunting is unnessacery in modern times, wich means that people kill for fun not for food. killing for fun even if you then eat the animal yourself is cruel. cuel to the animal thats life was wasted and cruel to its predators as they go hungry for a bit longer.

i do sense this debate spirraling a bit now.

this is ridiculous, the uk has some of the best civil rights in the world. were also a responsible nation with a limited landmass, so vehicle legislation is a good idea. the thing is were not brought up to believe that we are the greatest country in the world, we question our government at every turn.

plus i think calling us slaves is pretty ironic seeing as we were the first to ban slavery. a gesture wich many would have said at the time wouldnt help to stop slavery in the world. just like we are working against global warming now, we lead by example and we do it well. random invasions arent our style.
Granada.

First there is no greatest country on earth. Second, I am glad you are working on global warming. The more countries that destroy their economy on their own accord the better. Now if we just convince China to do the same.

however the animals life wont be wasted and the predater animals wont have to kill animal flocks like sheep to get a meal. for the most part hunting is unnessacery in modern times, wich means that people kill for fun not for food. killing for fun even if you then eat the animal yourself is cruel. cuel to the animal thats life was wasted and cruel to its predators as they go hungry for a bit longer.

i do sense this debate spirraling a bit now.

How is it "wasted"? Please enlighten us. Show how hunting destroys the ecological balance. Please.

First there is no greatest country on earth. Second, I am glad you are working on global warming. The more countries that destroy their economy on their own accord the better. Now if we just convince China to do the same.

i agree with the fact that patriotism isnt all its cracked up to be. in general it leads to blinkered points of view on world events.

however the animals life wont be wasted and the predater animals wont have to kill animal flocks like sheep to get a meal. for the most part hunting is unnessacery in modern times, wich means that people kill for fun not for food. killing for fun even if you then eat the animal yourself is cruel. cuel to the animal thats life was wasted and cruel to its predators as they go hungry for a bit longer.

i do sense this debate spirraling a bit now.

It does, yes. But I need to point out:

You are making a further assumption: that there are predators to go hungry.

Most of the Deer in the continental US have one or both of the traditional large predators as primary predator: Cougar or Wolves. The problem is, in an awful lot of the deer range those two predators have been shot out.

In those cases, the taking of the deer not only doesn't impact any predator, but actually helps the deer, by preventing overcrowding and overpopulation.

also, I would not characterize killing for fun as cruel. Pointless, if you don't want the meat or hide, but not cruel.

however the animals life wont be wasted and the predater animals wont have to kill animal flocks like sheep to get a meal. for the most part hunting is unnessacery in modern times, wich means that people kill for fun not for food. killing for fun even if you then eat the animal yourself is cruel. cuel to the animal thats life was wasted and cruel to its predators as they go hungry for a bit longer.

i do sense this debate spirraling a bit now.

I don't know about your wonderful paradise the UK, but they are few predators left in the US. There are no wolves in the Eastern US (except maybe for Maine), no pumas, few bears. Deer here have one predator--man. If they aren't hunted, they run amok, hit cars, jump through glass doors into houses, ruin corn crops, etc etc. There are more deer now in the US than in 1492 when Columbus came about.

Also hunters in the US provide more funds for habitat restoration than all so-called environmental groups combinded via hunting fees and the like.

If there was no hunting more deer would die.

Why do you assume hunting is cruel? Every hunter I know of does his best to kill with a single round. Compare this to say, a big cat or a wolf pack - the animal will often still be alive when the feeding begins.
It's killing for fun. If you don't see anything inherently wrong with that there's nothing I can do for you.

I don't know about your wonderful paradise the UK, but they are few predators left in the US. There are no wolves in the Eastern US (except maybe for Maine), no pumas, few bears. Deer here have one predator--man. If they aren't hunted, they run amok, hit cars, jump through glass doors into houses, ruin corn crops, etc etc. There are more deer now in the US than in 1492 when Columbus came about.

Also hunters in the US provide more funds for habitat restoration than all so-called environmental groups combinded via hunting fees and the like.

If there was no hunting more deer would die.

Specifically, they'ld die of starvation, disease, and motor vehicles instead of having their numbers managed.

The main reason large predators go after domesticated animals isn't due to lack of food, it's due to convienience. All that wonderful food just so nicely penned up. It's like X-mas.

It's killing for fun. If you don't see anything inherently wrong with that there's nothing I can do for you.

More emotional statements.

How is it "wasted"? Please enlighten us. Show how hunting destroys the ecological balance. Please.

no more dodo?

seriously though the point in there being a food chain is that an animal is eaten by another animal so that that animal can survive. if you kill an animal when you dont need to then its place in the food chain is wasted. im not a hippy or a veggie, i just dont see the point. this is a bit off subject though and i dont care enough about hunting to make it an argument.

It's killing for fun. If you don't see anything inherently wrong with that there's nothing I can do for you.

Yeah and fishing is cruel too. Hooking the poor fish in its little mouth. If you don't see anything wrong with that, there is nothing I can do for you either.

I hope this statement of mine sounds as stupid as yours did. But in my case, I am not serious in the least. I am afraid, you are actually serious on this point.

It's killing for fun. If you don't see anything inherently wrong with that there's nothing I can do for you.

I can't speak for everyone here, obviously, but for me the joy in hunting is the stalk, the careful pitting of my skills against the senses and instincts of the animal. The kill is the climax to the duel; the satisfaction is of the victory, not the death.

I wouldn't kill at all, but I like to eat venison.

The body-armor thing has been on the BBC news recently. Due to violent crime increases in urban areas. W/ cameras.

Some urban areas have cameras. Some urban areas have increases in violent crime. Therefore violent crime is increasing in areas with cameras. :rolleyes:

Spineless? You are calling Britain, spineless?

Im terribly sorry, but this may be an explosive rant.

Britain is, to this date, one of the safest, and best cared for countries in the world. We are not putting body armour on kids, because we have no need to. We don't have firearms and knives are controlled, not outright banned. The up and coming Violent Crime Reduction Bill propses to raise the age of knife buying to 18 rather than sixteen. Current british laws mean no blade may be lockable (i.e. flickknives, multi-tools are okay) and no more than 2 inches long. This is not fascist, this is practical. You do not require a machete for opening a product package.

As for britain being spineless, need i remind you that at one point we owned over a quarter of the world? What has america conquered? Fag all. You helped win the World Wars, I'll give you that, we did need some help, but then we were holding off the ENTIRE CONTINENT OF EUROPE. (Russia helped as well, go ruskies!) And by the time you managed to get off your fat capitalist arses (thats right, you didn't get involved becasue you were busy selling both sides suppiles) we had already been fighting them back for years.

Also might i remind you that in your failed conflict with canada, Britain once more kicked your candy arses?

The decision in Iran was to surrender, rather than escalate an already fraught situation. British troops are trained to consider the big picture rather than simply wading in causing up a shit storm. Yes, we surrendered, and we are now trying to get our boys back without the threat of force, because unlike you, we have grown beyond the childish need to kick the crap out of everything in the vain hope that it will make it better. If you are stung by a wasp you don't follow it back to the hive and start hitting it with a stick because it has 'wronged' you. We are out there in Iraq everysday by your side, doing a better job than you, with fewer numbers. Our army might not have your superior numbers but we sure as hell have the training, the heart, the tactics and above all the strange belief that we are there to help, not to piss on it for so long that they are eventually grateful you have stopped.

What does the president do? He does shit all, Prince Andrew was a helicopter pilot during the falklands, he flew inconditions no one else would and still got the job done. Prince Harry is being sent to Iraq. We have a history of consistently fighting (and winning) conflicts against larger foes, and our royals take the field. Have the balls to look up the Victoria Cross and see what i mean. Not to mention that currently there are more honorary (i say honorary because you cannot receive medals if you are not part of that countries army, but they can be awarded in honor of) Medals of Honor issued to briths forces by the US government in Iraq than to Americans. And you call us spineless?

During the cluster**** that was Vietnam we trained your troops, we casevaced your men, we sent you supplies. Because you lack the training. Once more you demonstrated how ineffectual your armies are. You spent on average 1 MILLION rounds to kill a VC and you still lost. You dropped more bombs on the Ho Chi Minh trail than in the entrie of WWII and you still couldnt stop blokes on bicycles with lampshades on their heads. Your sepcial forces are trained by forces, you are based on us (Delta Force, Marines, rangers, they all have their roots in BRITAIN)

We have been a world power for far longer than you have even existed. In our stately homes and museums there are wardrobes that have a longer linneage than your country. We have some of the greatest military minds to our name (Nelson, Wellignton, montgomery) who have you got (Eisenhower? Schwarzkopf? I'll give you patton, fair play, but others are sounding pretty german... Ours come from Sandhurst, one of, if not the finest military academys in the world. What has west point got that can even compare with Sandhurst?

And considering you have such a diverse and multicultural root system that has lasted for a bare number of centuries, can you even claim to have a good pedigree when it comes to fights? Look at your movies. Arnie - Austrian. Jean Claude Van Damme- Belgian, Jackie Chan, Jet Li, Bruce Lee, all chinese. And you have what, chuck norris? Alright, six times world champion in a FOREIGN martial art.

You claim to be a powerhouse but all you really seem to be is a stupid playground bully who goes around picking fights with people who they reckon they can beat. Your army is crude, it is ugly, it is inefficient, you have no concept of hearts and minds, your only leverage is to cripple countries financially or to fund terrorism in neighbouring coutnries to drive down real estate values. We dispatched the IRA, even WITH you funding them, in FEWER numbers with care and compassion but still the effectiveness to get the job done.

So we haven't got guns? who cares. We have streets that are safe to walk, without fear of being blown away by some vigilante with a god complex. An englishmans home is his castle, he will defend it if need be, but he will defend it for his country, not because someone comes in the night. You might knock us to the ground, but we will fight our way back up even if it means chewing through your army one man at a time.

no more dodo?

seriously though the point in there being a food chain is that an animal is eaten by another animal so that that animal can survive. if you kill an animal when you dont need to then its place in the food chain is wasted. im not a hippy or a veggie, i just dont see the point. this is a bit off subject though and i dont care enough about hunting to make it an argument.


Yet you have opinions about it.

Hunting maintains the balance in nature w/o predators. You can define "need" all you want, it doesn't mean beans when it comes to reality.

And remember folks, killing an animal that's been mass raised w/ a bolt-gun is much more humane and healthy to eat.

Some urban areas have cameras. Some urban areas have increases in violent crime. Therefore violent crime is increasing in areas with cameras. :rolleyes:

That's about how logical most of the anti-arguements have been here.

no more dodo?



Which was killed by dogs, not hunting.

Yet you have opinions about it.

Hunting maintains the balance in nature w/o predators. You can define "need" all you want, it doesn't mean beans when it comes to reality.

that all depends on the kind of hunting your talking about. there is a big difference between hunting a managed population of deer and hunting an animal like say the fox.

hunting is fun though in what it does for evolution. some of the effects it has on animal populations are quite astounding.

Which was killed by dogs, not hunting.

it was a quip. i suppose i should have written;

no more english boar?
or british black bear?

also wouldnt they have been dogs introduced by men, so kind of a hunting off shoot anyway?

that all depends on the kind of hunting your talking about. there is a big difference between hunting a managed population of deer and hunting an animal like say the fox.

hunting is fun though in what it does for evolution. some of the effects it has on animal populations are quite astounding.

Ahh, fox hunting, that wonderful british concept of releasing a fox and chasing it w/ dozens of dogs, horses, and drunken royalty.

I root for the fox.

it was a quip. i suppose i should have written;

no more english boar?
or british black bear?

There's a pattern here. You're right. British people shouldn't be trusted w/ firearms.

Exactly. There would still be 538 electors, but the 200+ would not be in a single state, but 10. Kanto would still be very large and Hokkaido or Okinawa very small, but say Kanto has 60 electors, better than having 200.

How does that make the slightest bit of difference?

this is ridiculous, the uk has some of the best civil rights in the world.

Dude, have you taken a look at the rest of the world lately? That's like being five feet tall in a room full of midgets and bragging about your height. I confess that the US isn't much better in this regard, though, especially ever since that asshole Nixon started the War on Drugs.

plus i think calling us slaves is pretty ironic seeing as we were the first to ban slavery.

Several of the Northern states banned slavery well before Britain did.

just like we are working against global warming now

Yes, and as a result of your heroic efforts, you'll somehow stop the astronomical phenomena that cause the Earth's 100,000-year-long warming and cooling cycles. :rolleyes:

Beyond that, I would continue challenge that the primary purpose for most guns, save military weapons, is for sport. That people can pervert these sporting tools is little different from how people can pervert virtually anything else that we, as a collective species, can get our hands on.

That's about how logical most of the anti-arguements have been here.

That's why I like the middleground.

Keeping the status-quo seems to be better than either introducing or banning guns in any particular area. Trying to take people's guns away in the USA would just cause a mess. Bringing them back in the UK probably wouldn't make much difference, since hardly anybody had them before they were banned anyway, but the main reason we got rid of them was to stop crazy people randomly going on the rampage with legally-owned weapons, as happened at Dunblane. It also more or less removes the threat of the fat kid going to school with his dad's gun and toasting everyone who made fun of him.

It's about time people stopped using increasing crime rates to suggest that gun-control is a bad idea, though. It has nothing to do with the banning of guns in the UK, because guns weren't used for self-defence before then anyway. The USA seems to have dramatically increasing rates of violent crime at the moment as well (according to CNN, anyway). Maybe you need bigger guns?

Ahh, fox hunting, that wonderful british concept of releasing a fox and chasing it w/ dozens of dogs, horses, and drunken royalty.

I root for the fox.

and suddenly i gree with you completely. fox hunting is the kind of hunting that really pisses me off. i remember a dig (im an archaeoliogist) i was working on once that was destroyed by a hunt. they simply rode on through and destroyed the exposed layers of medieval history we had spent months working on. fox hunting isnt about skill its about status and im glad its now been banned.

one up for the working class.

I live just west of there and we average 1 murder a year out 100,000 people. Another well armed Southern county. And the rapist that was shot and killed I posted about before was in Acworth on US 41 and Lake Acworth which is just north of Kennesaw. We don't put up with criminals down here. I bet if this guy had been in the UK 1) he wouldn't have had a gun at all and 2) if he did, he'd be charged with murder or some other nonsense for doing all of us a great service.

FYI, he was not charged with any crime. The case was handed to a grand jury and they rightfully failed to indict him for anything. They should have given him a medal afterwards, no word on that though.
Damn, I like reading good news!

I'm sure that the Sheriff, if he's like the guy in our county, gave the fellow a good pat on the back.


Did they also pass out banjo to yall backward ass hicks?

You bet, buddy. Whatever you say. Next time remember it's y'all, okay?

the main reason we got rid of them was to stop crazy people randomly going on the rampage with legally-owned weapons, as happened at Dunblane. It also more or less removes the threat of the fat kid going to school with his dad's gun and toasting everyone who made fun of him.

NEWSFLASH: The weapons that were used in the Columbine massacre were acquired illegally. I doubt that Dunblane and other school shootings were any different.

The BBC is probably the most biased news outlet on the entire planet. Well, I guess maybe the CCTV (China Central TV) might be just a tad more so. As for your military, if they are trained well in the use of arms, they seemed to have forgot how to turn off the safety catch and fire when Iranian terrorists decide to board them.
In all fairness, the way they were bunched together on those inflatables, it would have been a massacre had they tried to shoot it out. Why there wasn't some covering fire from somewhere else, is beyond me, though.

Yes, and as a result of your heroic efforts, you'll somehow stop the astronomical phenomena that cause the Earth's 100,000-year-long warming and cooling cycles. :rolleyes:


i understand how those cycles work as i have studied them as part of my work for quite some time now. i also understand that those cycles have been messed about quite a lot by us. were not due this kind of global event yet, and were not prepared for the ice age it will trigger. carbon emissions are higher now than they have been since way before man, they are linked to the global warming stats directly, and they are created by us.

we are literally giving the earth a case of the flu, and it will sneeze us out like the germs we are.:rolleyes:

NEWSFLASH: The weapons that were used in the Columbine massacre were acquired illegally. I doubt that Dunblane and other school shootings were any different.

NEWSFLASH The weapons owned by the looney at Dunblane (and the loony at Hungerford) were LEGALLY owned.

no more dodo?

seriously though the point in there being a food chain is that an animal is eaten by another animal so that that animal can survive. if you kill an animal when you dont need to then its place in the food chain is wasted. im not a hippy or a veggie, i just dont see the point. this is a bit off subject though and i dont care enough about hunting to make it an argument.
I don't blame you, I wouldn't want to argue this futile point either. What about animal overpopulation? That's a big problem in areas that used to be rural. Is it better to have animals die of disease and starvation than to have a limited hunting season for them?

and suddenly i gree with you completely. fox hunting is the kind of hunting that really pisses me off. i remember a dig (im an archaeoliogist) i was working on once that was destroyed by a hunt. they simply rode on through and destroyed the exposed layers of medieval history we had spent months working on. fox hunting isnt about skill its about status and im glad its now been banned.

one up for the working class.

That's not hunting. That's slaughter. It's like the "canned" hunts here. Most look on them w/ disgust.

NEWSFLASH The weapons owned by the looney at Dunblane (and the loony at Hungerford) were LEGALLY owned.

So all the people who didn't do anything got punished as well.

i understand how those cycles work as i have studied them as part of my work for quite some time now. i also understand that those cycles have been messed about quite a lot by us. were not due this kind of global event yet,

temperature spikes happen every 100,000 years. The most recent one was 100,000 years ago. Your argument is made of phail.

and were not prepared for the ice age it will trigger.

So global warming will lead to global cooling, eh? Well, I guess if things get too cold, we can just emit some more carbon :rolleyes:

NEWSFLASH The weapons owned by the looney at Dunblane (and the loony at Hungerford) were LEGALLY owned.

Okay... the fact remains that weapons can be acquired illegally without a lot of trouble.

I doubt that Dunblane and other school shootings were any different.

Not only were Thomas Hamilton's (the Dunblane nutter) guns legally owned, the police had previously tried to revoke his license but couldn't find legitimate grounds to do so. If they were illegally owned, there wouldn't have been such a media frenzy about gun-control, would there?

Not only were Thomas Hamilton's (the Dunblane nutter) guns legally owned, the police had previously tried to revoke his license but couldn't find legitimate grounds to do so. If they were illegally owned, there wouldn't have been such a media frenzy about gun-control, would there?

Sounds like the police dropped the ball. Even if they were illegally owned, there would have been a frenzy. It happens here all the time. There was a shooting in Chicago by gang bangers. The Mayor of that city stated that everyone who wants to own a gun should have to come to his office to justify why they should be allowed one.

So all the people who didn't do anything got punished as well.

Guantanamo?

Guantanamo?

Red Herring?

Guantanamo?

I'm not going to be defending said location, at any point in time.

temperature spikes happen every 100,000 years. The most recent one was 100,000 years ago. Your argument is made of phail.


So global warming will lead to global cooling, eh? Well, I guess if things get too cold, we can just emit some more carbon :rolleyes:

temperature spikes dont run like clockwork they happen in response to things. global events dont sit around waiting for an alarm clock to go off. on average a massive great rock has hit the earth every 150,00 years wich means we are overdue by about 50,000 years for one of those.

and global cooling is exactly what happens after global warming, your not gonna get more warming are you not unless your a sun.

So all the people who didn't do anything got punished as well.

You mean the hundreds of thousands of people who signed petitions to get them banned? The banning of guns in the UK is in no way comparable to what the banning of guns in the USA would be like. So few people owned them, and most of them had no reason to own them except for an obsession with guns. It's not like it wiped out a way of life.

I can't speak for everyone here, obviously, but for me the joy in hunting is the stalk, the careful pitting of my skills against the senses and instincts of the animal. The kill is the climax to the duel; the satisfaction is of the victory, not the death.
All the hunters I know sit at deer feeders that they put up and shoot at the deer that come to feed.
There's no thrill of the hunt there, just mindless killing.
More emotional statements.
Yeah, I'm human. What of it?

temperature spikes dont run like clockwork they happen in response to things. global events dont sit around waiting for an alarm clock to go off.

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

Dumbass.

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

Dumbass.



please; im gonna slap my head in annoyance now as this is a bit of a debate in my chosen science at the momment, these cycles are logical yes, butm as most theories they are not proven. in fact i was sat through a lecture about how milankovich cycles was a badly put together argument.

the point is that we are accelerating the tempreture spike and it is going to shit on us.

in a very honestly non sarcastic way, what do you do? are you a fellow scientist, im not being a dick i just wanna know as if you are we can take this a lot further i just dont think this is the place.

All the hunters I know sit at deer feeders that they put up and shoot at the deer that come to feed.
There's no thrill of the hunt there, just mindless killing.

Yeah, I'm human. What of it?

As long as they eat the deer, I see no problem with it. Indeed, in my home state of New Jersey, we have deer and bear season to control the population of aforementioned animals.

Personally, I wouldn't go about killing anything I wouldn't eat, but that's just me.

Okay... the fact remains that weapons can be acquired illegally without a lot of trouble.

I think you have to know the right kind of people. A regular person who snaps one day and decides he really wants to kill his boss, or the guy his girlfriend ran off with, most likely won't have a clue where to get one.

Yes, everything is relative to the observer. Even this post. In fact if you follow nihilism this doesn't even exist, only the idea. If you follow logical positivism, there is no point to this argument because we will never change anything, so we may as well go and get a proper job and contribute to society rather than blowing parts of it away with a firearm)

And yes, Afghanistan is a superb example, as is vietnam, as is iraq, and afghanistan II (the Sequel!) I am not disputing the efficiency of a firearm on a battlefield, but there is a huge difference in waging a guerrila war with a well organized and funded army, and a riot with firearms.

But then to be honest, why would you need to rise up? Im guessing you come from America, Britains cousin across the way, and it strikes me as the fact that the current presidency is entirely up your street.After all, the first election my have been a swindle, but the second was. If there was ever going to be an uprising it would be now, as america's metoeric social and economic rise is being hampered by an inefficient and militaristic government. The War on Terror is not going to work. You cannot force people to be happy. You cannot burst into a house in Iraq carrying a firearm shouting for a surrender and expect people to love you.

As for the above point regarding the defensive nature of a firearm, it is still not defensive. I agree that you have ended the fight by nuetralizing the opposition, but at the same time all you have done by shooting him is, to quote Garfield, 'Hit them back first' a defensive measure would be to block the knife, to remove the knife from his hand, to run away. Running up and kicking him in the pills is not a defensive measure.

Who else wants a piece?


I see you ignored my first example, where no shots were fired. And if someone lunges at me with a knife, after threatening me, shooting him would be defense of my life.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you ban guns then only the bad guys will carry guns. Gun crime soared in the UK after stricter guns got passed in 1996 and 1997, and gun crime has soared in Ireland since they banned guns in 1995.

Don't you all realize that most burglaries happen when you aren't home? And there for all of your guns will get stolen anyways.

My firearm is secured multiple ways, to prevent it disappearing during a robbery.

however the animals life wont be wasted and the predater animals wont have to kill animal flocks like sheep to get a meal. for the most part hunting is unnessacery in modern times, wich means that people kill for fun not for food. killing for fun even if you then eat the animal yourself is cruel. cuel to the animal thats life was wasted and cruel to its predators as they go hungry for a bit longer.

i do sense this debate spirraling a bit now.

Sorry, but you're wrong. In Groton, CT, there was a massive deer overpopulation. Natural predators couldn't maintain the population, and there were many vehicle/deer accidents in the area, not to mention all the deer that were starving. The state ended up having to step in, and allow hunters to cull the population, out of the normal season.

Personally, I think hunting is a lot less cruel than letting a deer starve to death, or letting it get hit by a car.

It's killing for fun. If you don't see anything inherently wrong with that there's nothing I can do for you.


That's BS. My brother in law doesn't hunt for fun. He hunts because he and his family (my sister and their 3 kids) like the taste of deer meat.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. If you ban guns then only the bad guys will carry guns.

You forgot "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun."

:D

Thank you for making my arguement for me. "Illegal guns" used by criminals are the problem.

Glad you agree.

i also aggree that the way to prevent illegal guns from being used by criminals is to not produce them in the first place. that way the only criminals to possess guns would be the mafia and they already are and control the governments anyway. of course it would be nice if some way could be figured out to get and keep guns out of their hands too.

it is also true however, dispite golden gun nut claims to the contrary, that where there are fewer guns, fewer gun realated and thus fewer deadly, crimes occur. this is as much and more reality as outlawing guns not immediatly removing them from the hands of outlaws.

there IS a practical reason, or excuse, depending on your perspective, to have an armed populas, and that is to give it the potential to protect itself from an over zelous government. however, in practical reality, i cannot say as i have ever seen this work all that well. governments can almost always afford to have bigger guns, a bigger possie, and prisons. something the average joe private citizen, with or without deadly force, generaly cannot.

=^^=
.../\...

i also aggree that the way to prevent illegal guns from being used by criminals is to not produce them in the first place. that way the only criminals to possess guns would be the mafia and they already are and control the governments anyway. of course it would be nice if some way could be figured out to get and keep guns out of their hands too.

it is also true however, dispite golden gun nut claims to the contrary, that where there are fewer guns, fewer gun realated and thus fewer deadly, crimes occur. this is as much and more reality as outlawing guns not immediatly removing them from the hands of outlaws.

there IS a practical reason, or excuse, depending on your perspective, to have an armed populas, and that is to give it the potential to protect itself from an over zelous government. however, in practical reality, i cannot say as i have ever seen this work all that well. governments can almost always afford to have bigger guns, a bigger possie, and prisons. something the average joe private citizen, with or without deadly force, generaly cannot.

=^^=
.../\...

"Golden Gun Nut". how cute. Of course statistics show you're wrong. But facts don't really matter in emotional based arguements, now do they.

Ok we'll follow the logic of this.

I could design a machine that has the specific purpose of flaying human bodies. Because it has the possibility to be used for something else that makes it acceptable?

I could design a machine that has the specific purpose of tanning leather hides. Sure it could be improvised to tan a human hide but thats not what it was designed for.

Do you get it yet? Guns were designed as killing tools. Airplanes and knives were not.

Not necessarily for killing people. Most US firearms are not used for killing people.

There are over 300 million firearms in active use in the US.

There are only around 16,000 firearm related murders. More to the point, 91 percent of violent crime in the US involves NO FIREARM AT ALL.

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

Incidents involving a firearm represented 9% of the 4.7 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated and simple assault in 2005.

Doesn't look like 300 million firearm murders to me, nor does it look like 300 million violent crimes, either. In fact, since violent crime appears to be 91 percent unrelated to firearms at all in the US, people must be doing something else with their firearms.

Target shooting mostly. Some hunting.

It's a 40 to 50 billion dollar a year business in the US.

"Golden Gun Nut". how cute. Of course statistics show you're wrong. But facts don't really matter in emotional based arguements, now do they.
Unfortunately, the facts don't matter to the current crop of demagogues that currently occupy the majority offices in Congress, either.

You mean the hundreds of thousands of people who signed petitions to get them banned? The banning of guns in the UK is in no way comparable to what the banning of guns in the USA would be like. So few people owned them, and most of them had no reason to own them except for an obsession with guns. It's not like it wiped out a way of life.

So because you can see to "reason" except "obsession", it's alright to confiscate property at the behest of tyranny by the majority.

So much for the "best civil rights in the world".

[QUOTE=G-Max;12487692]How does that make the slightest bit of difference?

Because you'd have to win ten states to earn the 200+ electors instead of winning simply a single state. If Japan was a single state, you could win the 200+ electors by simply having one more voter in your column than your opponent's. If Japan was instead 10 states you'd have to win all 10--not as easy as winning a single state. And the issues facing say Hokkaido are different from say Kanto or Kagoshima, so it doesn't follow that just because you win Kanto you can also win in Hokkaido or Kagoshima. But if Japan was a single state, winning Kanto with the majority of the population may in fact win you all of Japan--even if voters in Hokkaido thought you were the devil himself.

I made a simple statement. Guns are designed to kill.

Guns are designed to propel a cylindrical projectile with a conical front down a barrel through use of chemical energy, actually.


No further elaboration is needed as I see it, the statement stands on its own.

Hey why bother arguing when you can blurt out "statements" that are incorrect, misleading and designed to assuage your apparent need to lay blame on inanimate objects?

"Golden Gun Nut". how cute. Of course statistics show you're wrong. But facts don't really matter in emotional based arguements, now do they.


actually strange enough this debate has done what i hoped it would it has educated to other possibilities. i still dont like guns and i dont think that the way most american states deal with their gun legislation is very good either.

but to continue i do agree that certain responsible people should have them, not to use them on criminals or as marshall law. but as both a deterrent to crime and a way of making some people feel safer.

i think maybe an in between system where if a person wants a gun, they dont just have to have the money or have a waiting period; but a rigorously trained in the way that british police special forces. that they have both practical and psychological tests to pass before they can have a weapon. and that every few years ( just like the police) they are retested, if they fail the psyche test just once there weapons should be confiscated and not handed back. that way nutters dont get guns and many schoolchildren a year wouldnt get shot, or bosses, or police when a person snaps.

i think as well that the guns should be limited and the ammo too the way that the swiss do it, with regular audits to make sure nobodys trying to become rambo.

Sorry, but you're wrong. In Groton, CT, there was a massive deer overpopulation. Natural predators couldn't maintain the population, and there were many vehicle/deer accidents in the area, not to mention all the deer that were starving. The state ended up having to step in, and allow hunters to cull the population, out of the normal season.

Personally, I think hunting is a lot less cruel than letting a deer starve to death, or letting it get hit by a car.


and finally i agree with this statement too i didnt see the full picture as british hunting is very different to that in america, for a start we have much smaller animal populations. i dont like hunting but when put like this i can accept it.

there you go people im not pro or anti gun as such and youve all helped cheers for confusing me. oh and to the earlier science bashers; your still full of shit that hasnt changed.

:)

actually strange enough this debate has done what i hoped it would it has educated to other possibilities. i still dont like guns and i dont think that the way most american states deal with their gun legislation is very good either.

but to continue i do agree that certain responsible people should have them, not to use them on criminals or as marshall law. but as both a deterrent to crime and a way of making some people feel safer.

i think maybe an in between system where if a person wants a gun, they dont just have to have the money or have a waiting period; but a rigorously trained in the way that british police special forces. that they have both practical and psychological tests to pass before they can have a weapon. and that every few years ( just like the police) they are retested, if they fail the psyche test just once there weapons should be confiscated and not handed back. that way nutters dont get guns and many schoolchildren a year wouldnt get shot, or bosses, or police when a person snaps.

i think as well that the guns should be limited and the ammo too the way that the swiss do it, with regular audits to make sure nobodys trying to become rambo.




and finally i agree with this statement too i didnt see the full picture as british hunting is very different to that in america, for a start we have much smaller animal populations. i dont like hunting but when put like this i can accept it.

there you go people im not pro or anti gun as such and youve all helped cheers for confusing me. oh and to the earlier science bashers; your still full of shit that hasnt changed.

:)

AN interesting thing about the Swiss as I've stated before. The only things audited are their military issue ammo and their issued rifle. They are subsidized by the Gov't to purchase additional ammo to practice w/, have numerous other firearms they can purchase as civilians, and have gov't sponsored competitions for youth and adults.