NationStates Jolt Archive

Maybe, the 'I voted for Bush' t-shirt was over the top :p

Do you realize what could happen, if you had a gun and try to show/use it...

Now, you lose some money and sure the experience is traumatic. But losing a life is worse...

I don't understand the sentence i've bolded. Could you explain please?

I never argued that it was the best form of self defence. I was just saying that it is still one form, and that the police aren't involved in self defence by definition.

Oh, I don't know. Isn't the topic "hey bring it on you gun-nuts! You'll lose your temper long before me!" ...? ;)
This would explain a lot.

EDIT: WOOT, the half-millenium is MINE! MINE!

Congrats.

No, maybe you misunderstand the idea of a constitutional right. Slaves were not a constitutional right, and there was a good reason to ban slavery. Firearms are one, listed right after free speech. This was a country founded by a bunch of rebels who didn't want to pay taxes, I think they'd have like people having guns.

Doesn't matter. Once you could have slaves, once women couldn't vote...



Sure. So how about if there's no local gun club? What if they don't have the sorts of firearms I want to shoot? It's possible to do target shooting in your own backyard (especially in the rural US), so should that be forbidden?

What a pity, no?


They do. But you were busy saying that people have no reasons to need a gun - looks like you've just given us at least one.

Hunters are sometimes needed. And in general, they know how to handle a gun.


Shooting vermin is a job for licensed hunters? No, hunting is a job for licensed hunters. Shooting vermin refers to foxes, squirrels, rattlesnakes, etc. This is, of course, mostly a rural concern, but even so, it's another valid reason to own a gun.

Foxes, squirrels... Thus hunting...

I'm not saying that common people should play police. I'm saying that people should have a right to defend themselves against attack. By your logic I'm not allowed to have pepper spray to defend myself, not allowed to fight an attacker in self defence, etc. The police are experts at reactive work - responding once a crime has been committed. Fortunately, they can't do any sort of precrime stuff, so crime will still happen, people will still be attacked, and their rights to life and liberty still stand. Hence, firearms for self defence.

In many countries (including Belgium) pepper spray is forbidden.

Most people will never meet criminals. You don't have to prepare yourself for everything. Maybe you can stay in your house and lock the doors, close the windows...

You seem to be under the impression that as soon as someone has a gun, criminals are lining up to break into their house to steal it. A criminal who is already armed doesn't need to break in to steal more, and a criminal who isn't will be very unlikely to break in to the house of someone they know is armed.

I think it is, yes. In Belgium it happens from time to time.


Hm. That's new, from all of your other posts in this thread.

Also, nice to see you saying that people should be allowed guns at 18, as that's the age of adulthood.

Except that 18 is too young. I would rather prefer 26, maybe 24 but not much lower.

I don't understand the sentence i've bolded. Could you explain please?

I never argued that it was the best form of self defence. I was just saying that it is still one form, and that the police aren't involved in self defence by definition.


Sure. If you would wear a 'I voted for Bush' t-shirt, you would get special attention from just anyone (including criminals) around the world.

It's a stupid joke, no worries.

Sure. If you would wear a 'I voted for Bush' t-shirt, you would get special attention from just anyone (including criminals) around the world.

It's a stupid joke, no worries.

I'm not sure if you think i'm from the US but just in case i'll just clarify by telling you i'm Irish

You don't have to prepare yourself for everything.

So? If people want to be prepared then why shouldn't they be allowed to be?

I'm not sure if you think i'm from the US but just in case i'll just clarify by telling you i'm Irish

I was not sure. I know Dundee United.

But there are other Dundees as well. :)

I'm not sure if you think i'm from the US but just in case i'll just clarify by telling you i'm Irish

He thought I was American too. Odd that.

So? If people want to be prepared then why shouldn't they be allowed to be?

If it is messing up society, one should reconsider the preparation, no?

I really believe that US would count less homicides, school-shootings, kid-to-kid shootings if there were less guns.

If it is less available, fewer accidents will happen. Can we agree about that one?

I'm wondering why you would expect that criminality would rise, if you don't have your guns anymore...

It isn't the case in Europe. Most EC countries count less criminality, so...

I was not sure. I know Dundee United.

But there are other Dundees as well. :)

I'm at university in 'Dundee United' Dundee

Guns are very much like condoms, you never have one when you would need one ;)

I visit regularly the one and only real Irish pub 'Het Zand' in my town. We count 6 or 7 Irish pubs, but most of them are 'fake'. It's feeling like Disney in most of them. :)

And I still like Therapy? and Guinness of course.

Yes, I consider most criminals as stupid people. When one is risking his life for a lousy wallet, I don't consider that as an act of smartness. But hey, if you insist, you can find them smart.

So I have to be an expert to form an opinion and you not?

Sure, it's traumatic and I understand very well your reaction. Maybe I would do the same in your place.

But 'cause maybe I'm not used to that kind of situations, I can look at it from a distance.

I still think that odds are higher that you would be killed or really hurt if you had a gun at the time of the incident.

Without gun:

• Guy points gun in your ribs, trigger ready
• Shouts for wallet
• Motive to kill: zero, he wants your wallet, he’s not out to kill you else he would have killed you.
• Give wallet, bully will fly away.

Now, same situation, with gun:

• Guy points gun in your ribs, trigger ready
• Shouts for wallet
• Motive to kill: zero, he wants your wallet, he’s not out to kill you else he would have killed you.
• Try to take YOUR gun.
• Odds are higher than 50% that he’ll shoot you:
o He’s afraid, you are out to kill/hurt him, now he has a motive to pull the trigger
o He’s in a better position than you are: his gun is trigger ready and aimed at you
• Sure he can be afraid and run away and what if it is not like thousands of Americans discover each year?

Sure, it’s not my business if you want to bet with your life... go ahead


If you are not an american citizen then say out of american issues period, its none of your business. Me owning a gun in Columbus will have exactly zero affect on you in Belgium. Beyond that I don't care what you think ... deal with it!

If it is messing up society, one should reconsider the preparation, no?

Define "messing up society". Show how they are directly responsible.

I really believe that US would count less homicides, school-shootings, kid-to-kid shootings if there were less guns.

Less legally owned guns or guns overall?

If it is less available, fewer accidents will happen. Can we agree about that one?

If you want to live in a fantasy world. Yes. You could also have fewer accidents by education.

I'm wondering why you would expect that criminality would rise, if you don't have your guns anymore...

Because then criminals would not worry about an armed victim.

It isn't the case in Europe. Most EC countries count less criminality, so...

And always have. It's not dependant on firearm ownership.

If it is messing up society, one should reconsider the preparation, no?
You haven't demonstrated that guns are messing up society more than removing them from society would.

I really believe that US would count less homicides, school-shootings, kid-to-kid shootings if there were less guns.

If it is less available, fewer accidents will happen. Can we agree about that one?
This is a tautology, mostly. You're basically saying that if there are less guns, people won't be able to use guns as much. It adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm wondering why you would expect that criminality would rise, if you don't have your guns anymore...
There wouldn't be more criminals, ordinary citizens would just be less able to defend against them. Didn't someone say earlier that there were 2 million cases of a gun being used in self defence? 2 million is quite a rise in the number of crimes, in any country.

It isn't the case in Europe. Most EC countries count less criminality, so...

So you should try making a point before you trail off.

If you are not an american citizen then say out of american issues period, its none of your business. Me owning a gun in Columbus will have exactly zero affect on you in Belgium. Beyond that I don't care what you think ... deal with it!

Gun ownership is just an issue for US citizens to discuss?

Interesting.

Gun ownership is just an issue for US citizens to discuss?

Interesting.

You see, nobody outside America has guns. Except the terrorists.

Wow. That right there is the problem with honest law-abiding citizens like yourself owning guns. You don't have the faintest idea what is legal and what's not. "Just go with the gut feeling and blow them away" seems to work for you.

Um, no. I pointed out a case where a mugger was in the process of stealing an old woman's purse. She shot him while he tried to escape. She had a reasonable fear for her life in that situation, so she had the legal right to use deadly force.

I understand when deadly force is allowed to be used in self-defense. Do you?

... and what you are proposing is a system where those too timid or scrupulous to pull a trigger are at the mercy of everyone else, whether those others are recognizable members of a gang, or a little old lady committing her first murder.

I really have no idea how you got this from my postings.

If you are not an american citizen then say out of american issues period, its none of your business. Me owning a gun in Columbus will have exactly zero affect on you in Belgium. Beyond that I don't care what you think ... deal with it!

Shoot me :)

Um, no. I pointed out a case where a mugger was in the process of stealing an old woman's purse. She shot him while he tried to escape. She had a reasonable fear for her life in that situation, so she had the legal right to use deadly force.

I understand when deadly force is allowed to be used in self-defense. Do you?



How is it self defence when he's already running away?

I'm not really that informed about such laws in the US but I always thought it was only self defence when the attacker was attacking

In the movie, a seventeen year old boy is buying ammunition in some K-mart...

Firstly, ammunition ≠ a firearm. Secondly, if true that is illegal, and whomever it was at K-Mart that did that should be punished, as well as the purchaser. Thirdly, it's a Michael Moore film, so are you sure you can trust his claim it was a seventeen year old? Michael Moore has a history of distorting the truth to suit the needs of his movies, even to the point of outright lies.

Firstly, ammunition ≠ a firearm. Secondly, if true that is illegal, and whomever it was at K-Mart that did that should be punished, as well as the purchaser. Thirdly, it's a Michael Moore film, so are you sure you can trust his claim it was a seventeen year old? Michael Moore has a history of distorting the truth to suit the needs of his movies, even to the point of outright lies.

I don't think that Moore can win a law suit from K-mart.

So I assume it's correct.

I don't think he's lying. Sometimes he's making more noise than needed, but that's just to get the attention.

You don't need a brain to carry a gun. Your bigger-papa government is protecting you as well. Or are those policemen just there to please the tourists?

Nonsense. Police are very good at cleaning up after a crime, but they almost never arrive in time to prevent the commission of a crime. I prefer to have better options than cowering in my closet and hoping the police show up before an intruder murders me and my wife.

As an example, my parents own a farm out in the Shenandoah. The nearest police station is maybe 20 miles away. Do you really think the police would show up in time to prevent a crime?

Eh no. In my country, wearing a seatbelt is mandatory. It's law. I have no choice. But I'm not pushed to have a gun.

Neither is anyone in the US- people simply choose to own guns. Why would you deny them that choice?

Driving a car is dangerous. Odds are high that anyone will be involved in a car accident. Much, much and much higher than finding a
criminal in your living room....

That is your view, and you're welcome to it. But it's relatively easy and cheap to prepare for the (admittedly rare) case of someone breaking into your house. It's really not much different than putting on a seatbelt- there's realy no downside to owning a gun, and there is a very high potential upside.

Criminality is that low in US, that odds are almost zero that you'll have to face a criminal.

Okay. So what? Odds are very low that my house will burst into flames, but I still have a smoke detector and a sprinkler system installed. Plus I own home insurance. Following your logic, that makes me a coward.

You are protecting yourself for something which is not realistic.

That's your opinion.

I didn't. I said that Central Park is near Brooklyn. Which is true.

Not really. Central Park is in Midtown Manhattan. Brooklyn is miles away, and across a river.

If you would drop the personal insults, we could have a decent conversation. What do you think?

Excuse me? You're the one who has repeatedly said Americans are cowards and have anxiety disorders. And now you're calling for civility? Bite me.

Er...mate.... ding aling..u are not so smart. Er...i think u are a clown, u know, the guy on the back row in classroom...telling stupid jokes ad acting clever? wHEN IN REALITY HE IS A LOW iq SON OF A BITCH.

http://img486.imageshack.us/img486/9695/owltrouble1rq.jpg

Shoot me :)

:sniper:




What, you asked. :p

How is it self defence when he's already running away?

I'm not really that informed about such laws in the US but I always thought it was only self defence when the attacker was attacking

He was armed and he was in the process of committing a felony. If she had tracked him down a couple of days after the mugging and shot him, that would not be self-defense.

But while the criminal is still in the process of committing the crime, he doesn't get immunity from deadly force just because he has started to escape with her purse.

It's a question of whether the victim was in reasonable fear for her life. Any prosecutor who had tried to bring her up on charges in such a situation, especially in a state like Oklahama, wouldn't have been able to even obtain an indictment at the Grand Jury level.

I don't think that Moore can win a law suit from K-mart.

So I assume it's correct.

I don't think he's lying. Sometimes he's making more noise than needed, but that's just to get the attention.

Who said anything about a lawsuit?

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

And he has a history of lying (distorting the truth, editing speeches to say what he wants to say, and outright lies).

Ifreann and Kecibukia,

Five, six times more homicides compared to France, Germany, and UK…

Look at this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg

If there are less legal guns, after a while the illegal ones will drop as well.
From whom is the local ghetto boy getting his gun?

If there are fewer cars, fewer accidents will happen.
If there are fewer guns, fewer accidents will happen.
I don't see what's fantasy about that one.

I don't think that criminals care about the victim their weapon or not.
If they want to do their crime, they just do it.

When I'm talking about the correlation between guns and criminality, one can have a look at Europe. There are not that much guns around and still, 'our' criminals are not shooting at will. Criminality isn't everywhere.

USA is having more criminality as in Europe. But it's still rather manageable. They don't have a South American situation. The average American Joe will only see criminals on his TV screen...

Who said anything about a lawsuit?

Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups.

And he has a history of lying (distorting the truth, editing speeches to say what he wants to say, and outright lies).

If he was lying, faking or just discredited k-mart, you can bet that k-mart would sue him...

That’s what every company would do. Sure when it’s having the financial power as the k-marts of this world…


Sometimes, I don’t get it, why is it so difficult to use common sense…

If there are less legal guns, after a while the illegal ones will drop as well.
After a while. And what do you think is going to happen during that 'while'? Criminals will just play nice and stop committing crimes, since they know that their victims will not have guns?
If there are fewer cars, fewer accidents will happen.
If there are fewer guns, fewer accidents will happen.
I don't see what's fantasy about that one.
I said tautology, not fantasy. It means you are stating the obvious and adding nothing to the discussion by doing so.

I don't think that criminals care about the victim their weapon or not.
If they want to do their crime, they just do it.
This is just ridiculous. Just because they're criminals doesn't mean they're retarded. Anyone with two functioning brain cells could understand that trying to commit a crime agaisnt someone who doesn't have a gun is a better idea than committing a crime against someone who does.

When I'm talking about the correlation between guns and criminality, one can have a look at Europe. There are not that much guns around and still, 'our' criminals are not shooting at will. Criminality isn't everywhere.
And I point at Switzerland. According to your logic the place should be rife with criminals. It is not.

USA is having more criminality as in Europe. But it's still rather manageable. They don't have a South American situation. The average American Joe will only see criminals on his TV screen...

So? You keep saying that most people won't ever be the victim of crime, as if that means they shouldn't take any precautions against being the victim of crime. This is just plain nonsense.

Ifreann and Kecibukia,

Five, six times more homicides compared to France, Germany, and UK…

Look at this map:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Map-world-murder-rate.svg

If there are less legal guns, after a while the illegal ones will drop as well.
From whom is the local ghetto boy getting his gun?

If there are fewer cars, fewer accidents will happen.
If there are fewer guns, fewer accidents will happen.
I don't see what's fantasy about that one.

I don't think that criminals care about the victim their weapon or not.
If they want to do their crime, they just do it.

When I'm talking about the correlation between guns and criminality, one can have a look at Europe. There are not that much guns around and still, 'our' criminals are not shooting at will. Criminality isn't everywhere.

USA is having more criminality as in Europe. But it's still rather manageable. They don't have a South American situation. The average American Joe will only see criminals on his TV screen...

The 'local ghetto boy' is buying his gun from the same place he's buying his drugs - a dealer. Not legally.

Upthread someone mentioned that only 5% of crimes are committed with licensed firearms. Know why? Because if a firearm is licensed, it's a lot easier to trace. The weapons that are generally used in crimes are illegally imported, or illegally constructed.

Banning or restricting legal firearms does very little to decrease the crime rate or disarm criminals, because criminals aren't using legal guns in the first place. All it does is ensure that responsible citizens cannot defend themselves.

Let's take me as an example. I'm lightly built, and look fairly posh. Over here in the UK, if someone wants to mug me, I don't stand much of a chance. In the US, I buy a handgun, get a concealed carry license, and draw to defend myself if necessary. I don't get one as a penis extension or because I'm a coward. I get one for the same reason I have a smoke detector or I wear a seatbelt - I don't want to use it, but it's better to have and not use than need and not have.

The one serious thing this thread has done is made me convinced I will buy a handgun when I legally can, just to piss off the people who want to rob me of my rights.

Edit: Criminals do care about whether potential victims are armed. There's something that people who know economics call a cost/benefit analysis - you weigh up the costs, weigh up the benefits, and decide on your course of actions. While I doubt that your average mugger consciously thinks about such things, it does influence his decision making. The more likely it is that his target is carrying a weapon, the higher the risks, for not much more benefit.

If he was lying, faking or just discredited k-mart, you can bet that k-mart would sue him...

That’s what every company would do. Sure when it’s having the financial power as the k-marts of this world…
Sue him for what exactly? Recording them breaking the law?


Sometimes, I don’t get it, why is it so difficult to use common sense…

Clearly you're not to good at it yourself.

Nonsense. Police are very good at cleaning up after a crime, but they almost never arrive in time to prevent the commission of a crime. I prefer to have better options than cowering in my closet and hoping the police show up before an intruder murders me and my wife.

As an example, my parents own a farm out in the Shenandoah. The nearest police station is maybe 20 miles away. Do you really think the police would show up in time to prevent a crime?


Well, our police is also good in preventing crimes. I'm sure that American police is equal equipped.

Sure they can't stop everything. But tell me, how many times are you murdered the last 10 years?




Neither is anyone in the US- people simply choose to own guns. Why would you deny them that choice?

'Cause they bring innocent people in big problems, like dead.

I never heard a story of one who didn't wear his seatbelt and killed by this action his neighbour...

That is your view, and you're welcome to it. But it's relatively easy and cheap to prepare for the (admittedly rare) case of someone breaking into your house. It's really not much different than putting on a seatbelt- there's realy no downside to owning a gun, and there is a very high potential upside.

It's not a view, but fact. There are really more car accidents than burglaries.


Okay. So what? Odds are very low that my house will burst into flames, but I still have a smoke detector and a sprinkler system installed. Plus I own home insurance. Following your logic, that makes me a coward.

** BREAKING NEWS ** Student entered a High School with a sprinkler and killed - no one.



That's your opinion.

.

Not really. Central Park is in Midtown Manhattan. Brooklyn is miles away, and across a river.



Excuse me? You're the one who has repeatedly said Americans are cowards and have anxiety disorders. And now you're calling for civility? Bite me.

It's not the same. If I call you a coward or when I say you are having an anxiety disorder then it's something as generalizing it to all Americans.

The first is personal.

Sue him for what exactly? Recording them breaking the law?




Clearly you're not to good at it yourself.


No, defamation.

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

Well, our police is also good in preventing crimes.
Prove it. Without whining about being asked to back up your claims, please.
Sure they can't stop everything. But tell me, how many times are you murdered the last 10 years?
......

'Cause they bring innocent people in big problems, like dead.
Owning a gun won't kill you.

I never heard a story of one who didn't wear his seatbelt and killed by this action his neighbour...

By not wearing a seatbelt people often injure, and sometimes kill, the other people in the car with them.

It's not the same. If I call you a coward or when I say you are having an anxiety disorder then it's something as generalizing it to all Americans.

The first is personal.

The second is ridiculous.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

I'm living in Belgium for almost 40 years.
Not one time, I met a burglar face-to-face.
Not one time I was in need for a gun.

I know that criminality is some higher in US, but it's still not that hard. Compare their rates with the ones of South Africa, Columbia and others and US is rather a land at peace.

I am rather sure that the average USAian never will meet a burglar face-to-face.

Still, why do they need such guns?

It seems they are very afraid from something. They act like chickens. TOK TOK TOOOOK !

If you want to insult Americans, learn to speak English. I had a good laugh at this ill-concealed attempt at gaining a rise from your target audience.

If you want to insult Americans, learn to speak English. I had a good laugh at this ill-concealed attempt at gaining a rise from your target audience.

Hey coward. Your first posting? Sure :)

No, defamation.

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

And to prove that it's defamation they have to prove that they didn't sell bullets to a 17 year old. If they're wrong they're massively fucked. If they're right they'll get some money from Michael Moore. Whole lot to lose, not much to gain.

Hey coward. Your first posting? Sure :)

Don't flame.

No, defamation.

In law, defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual, business, product, group, government or nation. Most jurisdictions allow legal actions, civil and/or criminal, to deter various kinds of defamation and retaliate against criticism.

So they can spend more in legal fees than they would get in return? Or they could not bother w/ it as few people even remember the movie anymore.

:rolleyes:

And of course, you have proof to back up your statement, right.

I really wish the hoplophobes would get some new personal attacks. I'm bored with the ones they CONSTANTLY repeat.

If you post it enough times it becomes funny. Also, add gun smilies for extra hilarity.

Well, our police is also good in preventing crimes. I'm sure that American police is equal equipped.



Preventing crimes or showing up at the scene of one already committed?

I don't know.

The film is a little older, maybe at that time it was allowed that teenagers of 17 could buy ammunition at will?

Or the people at K-mart thought maybe 'cause the presence of M. Moore and cameras that everything was OK and forgot to ask for an ID?

Anyway, that's not the issue. At 18, one year later, you can buy it legally: ammunition + rifles & shotguns.

It's equal sick. The only people that say that you're mature at 18 are people of 18 :) and gun loving people that think it's cool to learn 5 years old children the 'art' of shooting.
It's not legal. It wasn't legal when Bowling for Columbine was shot either. And the kid wasn't buying anything, he was returning them.

Don't flame.

Originally Posted by Jackmorganbeam
If you want to insult Americans, learn to speak English. I had a good laugh at this ill-concealed attempt at gaining a rise from your target audience.

Do your job.

Yes, but generalization works.

I don't think that most 18 years old boys and girls are "gun-ready".

You don't think. The age for handguns is 21, 18 for rifles. I see no problem with an 18 year old hunting.

Originally Posted by Jackmorganbeam
If you want to insult Americans, learn to speak English. I had a good laugh at this ill-concealed attempt at gaining a rise from your target audience.

Do your job.

I'm a student, my job is to get drunk. Oh, are you trying to suggest that he flamed you? He didn't, and even if he did that's no excuse.

Er...mate.... ding aling..u are not so smart. Er...i think u are a clown, u know, the guy on the back row in classroom...telling stupid jokes ad acting clever? wHEN IN REALITY HE IS A LOW iq SON OF A BITCH.
At least Ifreann can form complete sentences and spell. Go back to youtube.

It's not legal. It wasn't legal when Bowling for Columbine was shot either. And the kid wasn't buying anything, he was returning them.

I thought that was a different bit? I haven't seen it in ages.

Preventing crimes or showing up at the scene of one already committed?

If you want to be officer, check for info at:

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

You don't think. The age for handguns is 21, 18 for rifles. I see no problem with an 18 year old hunting.

Oh yes, rifles and shotguns only kill animals and not people.

If you want to be officer, check for info at:

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

Just because they're supposed to prevent crimes doesn't mean they can or do.

If you want to be officer, check for info at:

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

Do you ever provide sources to information you put forward or are you always like this?

Oh yes, rifles and shotguns only kill animals and not people.

Walking around with a rifle or shotgun draws a lot of attention to yourself. Guns that are a few feet long are kinda hard to hide under your clothes.

Walking around with a rifle or shotgun draws a lot of attention to yourself. Guns that are a few feet long are kinda hard to hide under your clothes.

*Resists urge to make childish joke*

Hey coward. Your first posting? Sure :)

No, it's not my first posting. A coward? What do you want, a list of my previous nations? I have gone through easily over 15 different nations and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has fallen victim to that "no reason ban" bug. So I start over. And continue the process. Ad nauseum. So, might I beseech you not to impugn my honor, or that of someone else, by making (irrelevant) accusations against that particular poster's integrity.

Do you ever provide sources to information you put forward or are you always like this?

He'll cite common sense and that's about it.

If it is messing up society, one should reconsider the preparation, no?[/qoute]
Legally obtained guns are not the problem with American society.

[QUOTE]I really believe that US would count less homicides, school-shootings, kid-to-kid shootings if there were less guns.
You believe. Why don't you find some statistics about legally obtained guns used in crimes?

If it is less available, fewer accidents will happen. Can we agree about that one?
No. Legally owned and obtained guns are not the problem.

I'm wondering why you would expect that criminality would rise, if you don't have your guns anymore...
Because criminals would still have their guns. You'd be disarming law abiding citizens only.

It isn't the case in Europe. Most EC countries count less criminality, so...
And legal owners of firearms in the US contribute to the crime how?

Do you ever provide sources to information you put forward or are you always like this?

I'm lazy.

I think it's obvious what police is doing and in big lines how they are doing it.

But not for all people.

So, might I beseech you not to impugn my honor, or that of someone else, by making accusations against that particular poster's integrity.

I wonder how many posters on NSG actually talk the way they post

I'm lazy.

I think it's obvious what police is doing and in big lines how they are doing it.

But not for all people.

Your arguments consist of something along the lines of "I think this is true therefore it's common sense"

Back it up

I'm lazy.

I think it's obvious what police is doing and in big lines how they are doing it.

But not for all people.

So it's obvious to you, without seeing statistics or anything like that, what the police are doing adn how they're doing it? You just know somehow? What, magic powers?

He'll cite common sense and that's about it.

Duh! Cuz it's true!:eek:

Snafturi,

And European criminals don't have guns? :)

I wonder how many posters on NSG actually talk the way they post

I swear more in real life.

Originally Posted by Jackmorganbeam
If you want to insult Americans, learn to speak English. I had a good laugh at this ill-concealed attempt at gaining a rise from your target audience.

Do your job.

Originally posted by Edwinasia

"USAians" [not a word]

"...afraid from something."

"If you want to be officer"

"I think its obvious what police is doing"

I flamed you not, rather made an observation.

Oh yes, rifles and shotguns only kill animals and not people.

In the US, at the age of 18, a person is considered an adult, and can legally vote, operate machinery (such as a deli slicer, forklift,etc), and go into the military. Therefore, if they are considered old enough to help determine the fate of their country, operate machinery that can injure themselves or others, or serve their country in the military, they obviously are old enough (generally speaking, with some exceptions) to own/operate a firearm.

I wonder how many posters on NSG actually talk the way they post

I can't say that I really do. Unless I'm making a point in front of a group of people, my conversation is usually not as verbose. Usually. ;)

But interesting question. Poll worthy, perhaps?

In the US, at the age of 18, a person is considered an adult, and can legally vote, operate machinery (such as a deli slicer, forklift,etc), and go into the military. Therefore, if they are considered old enough to help determine the fate of their country, operate machinery that can injure themselves or others, or serve their country in the military, they obviously are old enough (generally speaking, with some exceptions) to own/operate a firearm.

Though not old enough to drink in some places. :p

If you want to be officer, check for info at:

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


Boy was that a dodge.

Though not old enough to drink in some places. :p

That may be a discussion for another time/thread (although I don't understand it either).

I swear more in real life.

I use the phrase "I'm just putting that out there" way too much

you mean your not scared of Hugh Grant? (http://blogs.nypost.com/movies/archives/GrantBeansGOF_468x456.jpg)

he's after our moms :eek:

How dare you dismay the english language with a word like mom - MUM is the true word

Americans are all upset when there are shootings in schools and universities but it is the USA's fault for allowing guns to be legal - I am not saying that there aren't any in other countries like the UK (the best hehe) but not as nearly as much.

No, it's not my first posting. A coward? What do you want, a list of my previous nations? I have gone through easily over 15 different nations and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM has fallen victim to that "no reason ban" bug. So I start over. And continue the process. Ad nauseum. So, might I beseech you not to impugn my honor, or that of someone else, by making (irrelevant) accusations against that particular poster's integrity.

'honour' you mean.

If you want to insult me, learn to speak English. I had a good laugh at this ill-concealed attempt at gaining a rise from your target audience.

And yes, provide me a list of all your old nations.

'honour' you mean.



Honor is a legitimate way to spell the word ;)

Honor is a legitimate way to spell the word ;)

Not in UK English.

Not in UK English.

Did he specify? I'm pretty sure he didn't

I'm not defending his ridicule of someone who speaks English as a second language but the difference between your mistakes and, what you percieve to be, his is that his are correct in some areas

Sure they can't stop everything. But tell me, how many times are you murdered the last 10 years?

I posted, upthread, studies that show that 2 million crimes in the US, on average, are prevented every year by the use of legal firearms.

That is 2 million murders, rapes, robberies, kidnappings and assaults prevented by law abiding citizens' use of firearms. In many cases, all the citizens had to do was show the gun to their potential attacker.

You have conveniently ignored this statistic, of course.

Did he specify? I'm pretty sure he didn't

I'm not defending his ridicule of someone who speaks English as a second language but the difference between your mistakes and, what you percieve to be, his is that his are correct in some areas

Third language actually.

It's a poor man.

Um, no. I pointed out a case where a mugger was in the process of stealing an old woman's purse. She shot him while he tried to escape. She had a reasonable fear for her life in that situation, so she had the legal right to use deadly force.

I understand when deadly force is allowed to be used in self-defense. Do you?

Well, probably not.

However, I'm prepared to rule out shooting in the back someone who has finished committing a crime on me. They didn't kill me, they have the bag (and presumably money) and they are escaping. How could I have a reasonable apprehension they are going to kill me under those circumstances?

Looks more like summary "justice" to me. That man robbed me, I condemn him to death. Bang.

I really have no idea how you got this from my postings.

First, the context:


Now, same situation, with gun:

• Guy points gun in your ribs, trigger ready
• Shouts for wallet
• Motive to kill: zero, he wants your wallet, he’s not out to kill you else he would have killed you.
• Try to take YOUR gun.
• Odds are higher than 50% that he’ll shoot you:
o He’s afraid, you are out to kill/hurt him, now he has a motive to pull the trigger
o He’s in a better position than you are: his gun is trigger ready and aimed at you
• Sure he can be afraid and run away and what if it is not like thousands of Americans discover each year?

Sure, it’s not my business if you want to bet with your life... go aheadThat's not how it works. Criminals prefer the first situation you described- they want to be in an environment where they know that law-abiding citizens are not armed. That gives them a massive advantage.

In an environment where law-abiding citizens are allowed to be armed, the criminal is taking a risk every time he tries to rob someone. It's almost irrelevant if the person they are trying to rob is armed (though, if they are armed, the minute the criminal turns his back to run off with the victim's wallet, the victim is going to pull out his gun and shoot him. I read an article where an old lady in Oklahama did exactly that- she put 6 rounds into a fleeing mugger's back). Someone else on the street might be armed and can put a bullet in the mugger.

What you propose is allowing criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens without any real fear that they will be wounded or killed. That makes no sense to me.

Now, the post which is puzzling you:

*snip*

What you propose is allowing criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens without any real fear that they will be wounded or killed. That makes no sense to me.
.. and what you are proposing is a system where those too timid or scrupulous to pull a trigger are at the mercy of everyone else, whether those others are recognizable members of a gang, or a little old lady committing her first murder.


Edw'a described a scenario, you addressed it. But then in this last paragraph of yours you went into quite another mode of thought. "Allowing criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens" is a misrepresentation of Edw'a's proposition that citizens do not need guns (if in fact that is Edw'as proposition, I'm not sure). I haven't seen that poster claim that there should be no police or courts, that no disincentives be applied to criminals by legal means, ie trained professionals determining the guilt or innocence of an individual, according to strict rules (called "laws" in case you haven't heard of them ...), and according to other rules determining the extent of punishment. That would indeed be a radical position, but I don't believe that IS Edwinasia's position.

The rest of the paragraph seems to say that only the fear of being wounded or killed will prevent a criminal doing their dastardly thing. Quite bizarre.

I'll just toss in a joke here, cos it's what I do. I'll wager that even the most hardened criminal would desist in a crime, if their mother were to appear on the scene and start scolding them about doing that bad stuff!

Now as to what MY post meant. Indeed it does not say in your words anything from your post. It is, just as yours to Edw'a, a statement of what I see as the consequences of allowing citizens to enforce the law. It is a statement in MY terms of the consequences of your policy. It may be confusing you a bit that I describe it from the point of view of the person the crime is committed against.

I also do not use your concept "criminal." The concept is useless, given that you describe a killing which I consider murder, but define it as lawful self-defence.

Some citizens could not do it. They could not, even while having a crime committed against themselves, shoot another person. Not every law-abiding citizen looks at another person (even while that person is committing a crime against them) and sees a "criminal." They may have some quaint notion of life being sacred, or they may just be too timid to take such drastic action. Not all are judgmental enough to do as it seems you would, kill or injure another to protect their property. Probably even many gun owners could not, and gun owners are a minority in the USA.

You argue it from the point of view of the criminal, of what circumstances will deter a criminal from committing a crime. For some reason you overlook the role of the law -- is your justice system so pathetically broken that it is not even a factor in a criminal's mind when considering committing a crime?

This will sound crazy to you perhaps, but if I had only two choices (a) to kill a person who is demanding my wallet, and (b) give the person my wallet ... I would choose (b). I am not morally capable of holding another's life so cheap.

So should I carry a gun to protect my wallet? Perhaps I can bluff the person that I really will kill them if they don't back off, perhaps I can even bluff well enough to take them into custody. Perhaps all I have to do is pull out the gun. But suppose I am a timid person, or a person of very low intelligence, and I have no practice or skill in bluffing? Particularly for such high stakes. The person comes at me with their knife (I am in agreement with Edw'a on this point, I'd be foolish to try to draw a concealed weapon when I am being held at gunpoint) ... and still I cannot shoot them.

I posit that those people are the ones most vulnerable to crime anyway (don't forget, most violent crime is domestic) and a right to keep a gun does absolutely nothing to help them protect themselves.

Sorry to be so longwinded. I have been posting for more than twelve hours (well, multitasking a bit, but almost no breaks) and I waffle when my brain is tired. I hope my point was clear. Thankyou for addressing what I think was the strongest part of my post to you, that is most chivalrous.

EDIT: I shouldn't have said "little" old lady. You said she was an old lady, for all I know she may have been an old 6"2' Samoan lady!

I posted, upthread, studies that show that 2 million crimes in the US, on average, are prevented every year by the use of legal firearms.

That is 2 million murders, rapes, robberies, kidnappings and assaults prevented by law abiding citizens' use of firearms. In many cases, all the citizens had to do was show the gun to their potential attacker.

You have conveniently ignored this statistic, of course.

But no, I don't ignore it. Why should I?

The 2 million could be correct. But how many citizen are now dead 'cause they 'just' showed their gun to their potential attacker?

I'm on your line.



Well, probably not.

However, I'm prepared to rule out shooting in the back someone who has finished committing a crime on me. They didn't kill me, they have the bag (and presumably money) and they are escaping. How could I have a reasonable apprehension they are going to kill me under those circumstances?

Looks more like summary "justice" to me. That man robbed me, I condemn him to death. Bang.



First, the context:



Now, the post which is puzzling you:



Edw'a described a scenario, you addressed it. But then in this last paragraph of yours you went into quite another mode of thought. "Allowing criminals to prey on law-abiding citizens" is a misrepresentation of Edw'a's proposition that citizens do not need guns (if in fact that is Edw'as proposition, I'm not sure). I haven't seen that poster claim that there should be no police or courts, that no disincentives be applied to criminals by legal means, ie trained professionals determining the guilt or innocence of an individual, according to strict rules (called "laws" in case you haven't heard of them ...), and according to other rules determining the extent of punishment. That would indeed be a radical position, but I don't believe that IS Edwinasia's position.

The rest of the paragraph seems to say that only the fear of being wounded or killed will prevent a criminal doing their dastardly thing. Quite bizarre.

I'll just toss in a joke here, cos it's what I do. I'll wager that even the most hardened criminal would desist in a crime, if their mother were to appear on the scene and start scolding them about doing that bad stuff!

Now as to what MY post meant. Indeed it does not say in your words anything from your post. It is, just as yours to Edw'a, a statement of what I see as the consequences of allowing citizens to enforce the law. It is a statement in MY terms of the consequences of your policy. It may be confusing you a bit that I describe it from the point of view of the person the crime is committed against.

I also do not use your concept "criminal." The concept is useless, given that you describe a killing which I consider murder, but define it as lawful self-defence.

Some citizens could not do it. They could not, even while having a crime committed against themselves, shoot another person. Not every law-abiding citizen looks at another person (even while that person is committing a crime against them) and sees a "criminal." They may have some quaint notion of life being sacred, or they may just be too timid to take such drastic action. Not all are judgmental enough to do as it seems you would, kill or injure another to protect their property. Probably even many gun owners could not, and gun owners are a minority in the USA.

You argue it from the point of view of the criminal, of what circumstances will deter a criminal from committing a crime. For some reason you overlook the role of the law -- is your justice system so pathetically broken that it is not even a factor in a criminal's mind when considering committing a crime?

This will sound crazy to you perhaps, but if I had only two choices (a) to kill a person who is demanding my wallet, and (b) give the person my wallet ... I would choose (b). I am not morally capable of holding another's life so cheap.

So should I carry a gun to protect my wallet? Perhaps I can bluff the person that I really will kill them if they don't back off, perhaps I can even bluff well enough to take them into custody. Perhaps all I have to do is pull out the gun. But suppose I am a timid person, or a person of very low intelligence, and I have no practice or skill in bluffing? Particularly for such high stakes. The person comes at me with their knife (I am in agreement with Edw'a on this point, I'd be foolish to try to draw a concealed weapon when I am being held at gunpoint) ... and still I cannot shoot them.

I posit that those people are the ones most vulnerable to crime anyway (don't forget, most violent crime is domestic) and a right to keep a gun does absolutely nothing to help them protect themselves.

Sorry to be so longwinded. I have been posting for more than twelve hours (well, multitasking a bit, but almost no breaks) and I waffle when my brain is tired. I hope my point was clear. Thankyou for addressing what I think was the strongest part of my post to you, that is most chivalrous.

But no, I don't ignore it. Why should I?

The 2 million could be correct. But how many citizen are now dead 'cause they 'just' showed their gun to their potential attacker?

Well, why don't you provide the evidence to back up your assertions?

Well, why don't you provide the evidence to back up your assertions?

Look, Kecibukia, please use your common sense.

It's not working like this:

Criminal: Give me your money or...
You: Eh! No way! (taking your gun and showing it)
Criminal: Oops! (run away)

It's more working like this:

Criminal: Give me your money or...
You: Eh! No way! (taking your gun and showing it)
Criminal: *PANG*

The 2 million could be correct. But how many citizen are now dead 'cause they 'just' showed their gun to their potential attacker?

I have no idea- you tell me, if you know.

Look, Kecibukia, please use your common sense.

It's not working like this:

Criminal: Give me your money or...
You: Eh! No way! (taking your gun and showing it)
Criminal: Oops! (run away)

It's more working like this:

Criminal: Give me your money or...
You: Eh! No way! (taking your gun and showing it)
Criminal: *PANG*

Prove it. I can show you evidence for the first.

I have no idea- you tell me, if you know.

He doesn't. He just keeps claiming "common sense says..."

Not in UK English.

We should tolerate US spelling. It gives us a clue which posters are likely to be most fun to tease. *nod*

I'm on your line.

Could you rephrase that please? I don't understand.

People abuse people.
People dominate and take from people.

Usually it is physically strong, aggressive people (males, with more testosterone are typically more aggressive) who take what they want from people they consider weaker.

Guns have been called the great equalizers.
A gun in the hand of a twelve year old girl in a wheelchair can stop a WWE wrestler from acting on any desire to mistreat her.
Knowing this, such people tend to reconsider before mistreating other people.

Unfortunately, aggressors are typically not very capable of careful consideration (since they are often madly insane) and do indeed end up shot sometimes.

Look, Kecibukia, please use your common sense.

It's not working like this:

Criminal: Give me your money or...
You: Eh! No way! (taking your gun and showing it)
Criminal: Oops! (run away)

It's more working like this:

Criminal: Give me your money or...
You: Eh! No way! (taking your gun and showing it)
Criminal: *PANG*

The statistics you're refuting say otherwise. Where's your proof to contradict it?

Prove it. I can show you evidence for the first.

I don't see any reason why the homicide rate couldn't be at the same level of UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, France, Belgium, Switzerland...

Of course, then you should have the same sane gun laws as in Europe...

Even so, that doesn't give you the right to start insulting.

Once you'll be polite and then I'll answer you. Deal ?
By providing some sources to back up all your claims, other than 'common sense'? Sure.

Doesn't matter. Once you could have slaves, once women couldn't vote...
Tomorrow, anyone who the government brands a terrorist gets shipped off to Guantanamo Bay...

Are you suggesting all change is progress?

He'll cite common sense and that's about it.
Better than O'Reilly. :p

I don't see any reason why the homicide rate couldn't be at the same level of UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, France, Belgium, Switzerland...

Of course, then you should have the same sane gun laws as in Europe...

It's already been explained. Now stop dodging around and provide your evidence.

I wonder how many posters on NSG actually talk the way they post

You would be horrified. Not only am I equally pompous and longwinded, but I have a magnificent orators baritone.

I do the whole bit, holding my shoulders square and making noble gestures with both hands. I have ruined many a pleasant evening's chat ...

I don't see any reason why the homicide rate couldn't be at the same level of UK, Spain, Italy, Germany, Holland, France, Belgium, Switzerland...

Of course, then you should have the same sane gun laws as in Europe...

Another dodge. Why won't you answer our call for proof? Why won't you explain how to get firearms away from criminals (they won't be turning theirs in, if firearms were to be suddenly banned in the US)? Why won't you explain how having the same firearms laws in the US would make the US like Europe, when we have different cultures/social problems/etc?

Increased crime rates exist when aggressive, downtrodden, greedy people find out they can take advantage of other people.

It's already been explained. Now stop dodging around and provide your evidence.
Yep, as if somehow correlation equals causation. No adequate explanation is offered. Nothing. Just 'common sense'. :)

You have 5 times more killing as in most European countries.
The criminality rate is just a little higher as in Europe.

You have school-shootings almost every week. In Europe it’s rare.

But still American gun addicts say “no no, has nothing to do with our too liberal gun laws”

:)

You have 5 times more killing as in most European countries.
The criminality rate is just a little higher as in Europe.

You have school-shootings almost every week. In Europe it’s rare.

But still American gun addicts say “no no, has nothing to do with our too liberal gun laws”

:)

Edwinasia's seems to want to play Dodgeball today.

Poor baby, it sucks when you can't support your claims, doesn't it.

I thought that was a different bit? I haven't seen it in ages.

Maybe. It's been years for me too.

You want to compare crime rates?
Which crimes are worse?
Which crimes are acceptable?
Who will decide what the right punishment is?
Who will put up with such a person who imposes his answers to these questions on other people?

Give it up.
Choose where to live based on your understanding and your own value judgment. Just realize that everywhere on this planet (except where I am) is an imperfect place, and not everyone will want to live there.

What about the conditions in Japan where the crime is suicide?

Edwinasia's seems to want to play Dodgeball today.

Poor baby, it sucks when you can't support your claims, doesn't it.

I showed the links already. I can't help it if you're too lazy to read all of them.

And please, if you love statistics that much, I am sure you can handle Google, no?

Oh yes, rifles and shotguns only kill animals and not people.

Then provide statistics of hunting rifles used in crimes in America. And while your at it, find stats of crimes committed by 18 y/o's with their legally obtained hunting rifles.

People complain way too much about the minor harm that people do to each other.

How many people died as a result of the recent Tsunami?

DID SOMEBODY SAY A QUARTER BILLION?

WHAT?

Oh, but that wasn't me. It wasn't anyone I knew.

Maybe I just have a different view of the matter ever since a friend told me of her close friend who had his daughter pulled from his hands by the water.

Shall we all just live in a dream world, and ignore everyone else?

Snafturi,

And European criminals don't have guns? :)

What does it matter? The point is, you are taking guns from law abiding citizens, not criminals.

Increased crime rates exist when aggressive, downtrodden, greedy people find out they can take advantage of other people.

What an odd statement. There's some abstract truth to the idea that crime is aggression or greed ... but when do they "find out" ? Even small children trying to get things from their parents understand risks and rewards.

"Downtrodden" also seems incongruous.

If you could just restate that in different words, I might well agree with you ... not that any sane person would want THAT!

I'm lazy.

I think it's obvious what police is doing and in big lines how they are doing it.

But not for all people.

No, you are making ridiculous conjectures and assuptions and not backing them up with fact.

I showed the links already. I can't help it if you're too lazy to read all of them.

And please, if you love statistics that much, I am sure you can handle Google, no?

You absolutely DID NOT show any proof of your refutation that there are defensive uses of a firearm every year (including where the victim doesn't even have to fire, just show that they have a firearm).

And if you're making an argument, the onus is on YOU to provide proof. It doesn't matter if you're lazy or not.

People complain way too much about the minor harm that people do to each other.

See, this is why threads have subjects. The fact that we're spending so much time and energy talking about this subject doesn't mean we aren't interested in others.

You may be right, but you are WAY off-topic. If you aren't interested in discussing the subject, then don't post to the thread. Not so complicated, really ...

I showed the links already. I can't help it if you're too lazy to read all of them.

And please, if you love statistics that much, I am sure you can handle Google, no?

You didn't provide crap. You made the allegations and now you refuse to support them.

You have school-shootings almost every week. In Europe it’s rare.

School shootings every week? Another assertion without evidence.

And let me remind you that the Columbine shooters purchased their guns illegally, so they didn't give a rat's ass about gun laws. And the Virginia Tech shooter might well have been stopped if students and teachers on the campus were allowed to carry guns. Virginia is a state where citizens have the right to concealed carry, except in places like Universities.

And here's a case where armed citizens prevented a school shooting:

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

But I'm guessing you're going to ignore this one, too.

What an odd statement. There's some abstract truth to the idea that crime is aggression or greed ... but when do they "find out" ? Even small children trying to get things from their parents understand risks and rewards.

"Downtrodden" also seems incongruous.

If you could just restate that in different words, I might well agree with you ... (oh, sorry, was there a bracket here?)COLOR="White"]not that any sane person would want THAT![/COLOR]



Originally Posted by The twoslit experiment View Post
People complain way too much about the minor harm that people do to each other.
See, this is why threads have subjects. The fact that we're spending so much time and energy talking about this subject doesn't mean we aren't interested in others.

You may be right, but you are WAY off-topic. If you aren't interested in discussing the subject, then don't post to the thread. Not so complicated, really ...
Off topic to imply that getting personal about "my country" and "my laws" and how MUCH different it is, when a single act of nature is more devastating than a single act of man.
Maybe it's not right to let criminals have access to the power to take advantage of others, but how bad is it? Not that bad.
Get real, guns don't kill people, heart disease kills people.

Off topic to imply that getting personal about "my country" and "my laws" and how MUCH different it is, when a single act of nature is more devastating than a single act of man.

It seems I have angered you. My bad.
Not that I don't like a bit of a stoush, it was just rotten timing because I AM GOING TO BED RIGHT NOW. I live in Australia, you do the math ...

Maybe it's not right to let criminals have access to the power to take advantage of others, but how bad is it? Not that bad.
Get real, guns don't kill people, heart disease kills people.

You've got a point. Hopefully someone else will take it up with you.

We need guns to protect ourselves from the tyranny of the state.

:sniper:

Why not?

The effect of civilian weapons ownership on violence and crime is irrelevant.

Civilian ownership of weapons is the means by which government is kept in its place.

Liberty is infinitely more important than anything else, so this trumps any concerns about general safety and criminality.

This wins the thread: Couple make burglar clean up at gunpoint

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_fe_st/odd_burglar_cleanup;_ylt=AmcKDh8U7GjESEdZ5luUmOAuQE4F

This wins the thread: Couple make burglar clean up at gunpoint

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071019/ap_on_fe_st/odd_burglar_cleanup;_ylt=AmcKDh8U7GjESEdZ5luUmOAuQE4F

That's hilarious! I'm glad the homeowners got a little bit of personal justice before the burglar got hauled off to jail. :D And the cop is right, the burglar could have been shot/killed, so even though he was complaining about having to clean up, he's at least still alive.

We have guns to make sure a totalitarian regime never rises. It's as simple as that.

You want links, you get links.


In January 2001, 59% of the respondents in an ABC News/Washington Post survey said they favoured stricter gun control laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml

Reports & stats

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6562529.stm

ACCIDENTS

Motor Vehicles 43,900
Firearm 1,400

"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts."

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Firearms and Crime Statistics

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


I found these in 5 minutes...

We have guns to make sure a totalitarian regime never rises. It's as simple as that.

Why are you not shooting then?

* Patriot Act *

.
.
.

* Guantánamo Bay *

.
.
.

* Abu Ghraib *

.
.
.

* Iraq *

.
.
.

In the old days the government had guns and civilians had guns. Now people still have guns but the government has tanks and fighter jets. A totalitarian regime can rise any time it wants to.

The Iraqis seem to be resisting quite well with firearms and simple explosives made from everyday materials.

The Iraqis seem to be resisting quite well with firearms and simple explosives made from everyday materials.

Thanks for the info.

I didn't know the entire Iraqi population are fighting the US soldiers.

If it really was, the US army was already back at home...

Thanks for the info.

I didn't know the entire Iraqi population are fighting the US soldiers.

If it really was, the US army was already back at home...

I didn't say that, did I?

I ment that a nationwide insurgency, on even the small scale of the Iraqi one, is able to bog down and bleed even the mightiest of conventional militaries.

I didn't say that, did I?

I ment that a nationwide insurgency, on even the small scale of the Iraqi one, is able to bog down and bleed even the mightiest of conventional militaries.

Ok, sorry. I misunderstood you.

Yes, I agree with you. For guerrilla warfare you don't need much and still you can hurt a lot.

The Russians learned this lesson in Afghanistan.

I think it's waiting for the first guerrilla attacks inside USA. It's not a question if it will occur but when.

And all those fearing gun-loving-Americans will not stop them, despite their arsenal of AK-47's and M16's in their living rooms.

Ok, sorry. I misunderstood you.

Yes, I agree with you. For guerrilla warfare you don't need much and still you can hurt a lot.

The Russians learned this lesson in Afghanistan.

I think it's waiting for the first guerrilla attacks inside USA. It's not a question if they will occur but when.

And all those fearing gun-loving-Americans will not stop them, despite their arsenal of AK-47's and M16's in their living rooms.

On the contrary, the "fearing gun-loving-Americans" that you so love will be the ones making the attacks. We're much better armed then the Iraqis.

On the contrary, the "fearing gun-loving-Americans" that you so love will be the ones making the attacks. We're much better armed then the Iraqis.

Sure, they could stop 911, isn't?

The Iraqis seem to be resisting quite well with firearms and simple explosives made from everyday materials.Thanks for the info.

I didn't know the entire Iraqi population are fighting the US soldiers.

If it really was, the US army was already back at home...

You do realize you just brilliantly pwned yourself, right?

You mentioned "Iraq" as the last of a list of perceived steps to tyranny.

TSI countered with "less equipped guerillas are doing OK in Iraq"

Your reply: "not enough Iraqis are taking up arms to defeat tyranny."

Choice!

On the contrary, the "fearing gun-loving-Americans" that you so love will be the ones making the attacks. We're much better armed then the Iraqis.

Excellent. NSG needs more self-proclaimed terrorists.

We're not getting enough heat from The Man. I want my fair share of oppression!

I ask you this: if liberty is worth more than all else, what do you do if all the gun owners (by some magic of political consensus) suddenly rise up against tyranny together, but the MAJORITY of US citizens strongly oppose that?

There's an assumption I rely on: the majority of US citizens are not armed. You may call me on that, but I suggest you check the figures first.

If your answer is "we gun owners are the arbiters of liberty, we decide" then this proposition follows logically:

"Liberty is more important than democracy."

You and Edwinasia are a fair match for each other I say ! :D

You do realize you just brilliantly pwned yourself, right?

You mentioned "Iraq" as the last of a list of perceived steps to tyranny.

TSI countered with "less equipped guerillas are doing OK in Iraq"

Your reply: "not enough Iraqis are taking up arms to defeat tyranny."

Choice!



Excellent. NSG needs more self-proclaimed terrorists.

We're not getting enough heat from The Man. I want my fair share of oppression!

I ask you this: if liberty is worth more than all else, what do you do if all the gun owners (by some magic of political consensus) suddenly rise up against tyranny together, but the MAJORITY of US citizens strongly oppose that?

There's an assumption I rely on: the majority of US citizens are not armed. You may call me on that, but I suggest you check the figures first.

If your answer is "we gun owners are the arbiters of liberty, we decide" then this proposition follows logically:

"Liberty is more important than democracy."

You and Edwinasia are a fair match for each other I say ! :D

Why didn't those gun-loving Iraqis beat Saddam?

And also, it is not going to happen in US and if it does, the weapons would be delivered rather soon.

I'm wondering why those Americans are so afraid from their own government...

Tok tok toooooook

Why didn't those gun-loving Iraqis beat Saddam?

And also, it is not going to happen in US and if it does, the weapons would be delivered rather soon.

I'm wondering why those Americans are so afraid from their own government...

Tok tok toooooook

They are afraid OF their government.

I think we can all see why.

The idea that the best approach is to arm themselves and wait until they just can't stand it any more is what's weird.

Are all the gun owners going to agree when enough is enough?
What the hell is "liberty" anyway? Are they all going to agree on that?
The gun owners may agree that liberty is more important than life, but their families? "Stop ranting and put down that gun, or you're sleeping on the couch."
This "arm the people against tyranny" idea is what flooded Somalia and many other troubled countries with guns.
Do they have a plan to get their names and addresses back out of the surveillance databanks in which their spoutings are probably already recorded? A true tyranny would just take them and their family out with a smart bomb.


Gee, political involvement couldn't possibly work, could it? Building an alternative system with it's own economy couldn't work could it? Much better to build up and arsenal and hope the moment of truth is long in coming :rolleyes:

-----------------------

By the way, I meant what I said above. The way you cited Iraq as an example of tyranny (it sort of is, but NOT of US citizens) ... then agreed with TSI that insurgents are challenging that "tyranny" ... and then pointed out that "tyranny" in that case would be utterly defeated by a more widespread insurgency was an unmistakable contradiction. You UTTERLY DESTROYED your own point.

I can't help feeling you are "debating" for laughs. On a subject of life or death, a problem that US citizens of the anti-gun persuasion have tried long and hard to remedy (with some success, weapons ownership has been significantly restricted over the last century) ... on a subject which other people care deeply about and aren't posting in jest... debating for laughs is what is usually called "trolling."

If it comes to that, I'm not happy with you making a mockery of the case for gun restrictions. That I obviously take that side does not mean I agree with your points or the way you address the seriously-put points of others.

If I may venture to say: if your thesis was that no private citizen needs a gun, you have lost it. You have at the very least failed to make a case for it. I can't see more of what you've been doing turning that around.

Finally, "tok" would be pronounced in english like the sound of a cork being suddenly pulled, or perhaps hard wood being struck by a small glass object. Every chicken I have ever heard makes a sound more like "Buck buck baaark" with a very short "u" sound. That's usually written buk buk ...

They are afraid OF their government.

I think we can all see why.

The idea that the best approach is to arm themselves and wait until they just can't stand it any more is what's weird.

Are all the gun owners going to agree when enough is enough?
What the hell is "liberty" anyway? Are they all going to agree on that?
The gun owners may agree that liberty is more important than life, but their families? "Stop ranting and put down that gun, or you're sleeping on the couch."
This "arm the people against tyranny" idea is what flooded Somalia and many other troubled countries with guns.


Gee, political involvement couldn't possibly work, could it? Building an alternative system with it's own economy couldn't work could it? Much better to build up and arsenal and hope the moment of truth is long in coming :rolleyes:

-----------------------

By the way, I meant what I said above. The way you cited Iraq as an example of tyranny (it sort of is, but NOT of US citizens) ... then agreed with TSI that insurgents are challenging that "tyranny" ... and then pointed out that "tyranny" in that case would be utterly defeated by a more widespread insurgency was an unmistakable contradiction. You UTTERLY DESTROYED your own point.

I can't help feeling you are "debating" for laughs. On a subject of life or death, a problem that US citizens of the anti-gun persuasion have tried long and hard to remedy (with some success, weapons ownership has been significantly restricted over the last century) ... on a subject which other people care deeply about and aren't posting in jest... debating for laughs is what is usually called "trolling."

If it comes to that, I'm not happy with you making a mockery of the case for gun restrictions. That I obviously take that side does not mean I agree with your points or the way you address the seriously-put points of others.

If I may venture to say: if your thesis was that no private citizen needs a gun, you have lost it. You have at the very least failed to make a case for it. I can't see more of what you've been doing turning that around.

Finally, "tok" would be pronounced in english like the sound of a cork being suddenly pulled, or perhaps hard wood being struck by a small glass object. Every chicken I have ever heard makes a sound more like "Buck buck baaark" with a very short "u" sound. That's usually written buk buk ...

Is a majority of Americans having a gun?

But...but our chicken talk like 'tok tok tooook'.

It’s interesting to see that chicken 'talk' different around the globe.

Maybe. It's been years for me too.

I'm pretty sure they did try to return bullets taken from some of the survivors at some point.

Is a majority of Americans having a gun?

I said that in a reply to TSI. Here were my exact words:

"There's an assumption I rely on: the majority of US citizens are not armed. You may call me on that, but I suggest you check the figures first."

I assume that the majority of US citizens do not have a gun. I don't know. It is a guess based on some other facts.

If you want to know, I suggest you do the research.


But...but our chicken talk like 'tok tok tooook'.

It’s interesting to see that chicken 'talk' different around the globe.

I heard a theory on this some years ago, which is gradually coming back to me as we address this new and important subject. After considerable searching, I can't find it with google.
It pretty much went that people hear the sound differently, but a chicken makes the same chicken noise.

That chickens are influenced by hearing humans talk doesn't seem likely. Though I have heard them imitating other noises like trains or power-tools, but they still sound more like a chicken than a train.

Here is some stuff I DID find on the subject:

Huge List of Animal Noises in different languages. (http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/Personal/dabbott/animal.html) (including chickens)
Flash-thingy of kids from different countries making animal sounds (http://picks.yahoo.com/picks/i/20030214.html) (untested - my sound is out)

As usual, there seems to be relevant stuff but it's in JSTOR. There was something useful on a US university site but it seems to have been purged. Fascists.

I said that in a reply to TSI. Here were my exact words:

"There's an assumption I rely on: the majority of US citizens are not armed. You may call me on that, but I suggest you check the figures first."

I assume that the majority of US citizens do not have a gun. I don't know. It is a guess based on some other facts.

If you want to know, I suggest you do the research.

It was just a question. Maybe you knew it from your head. I'm not such guy that is asking proof for everything you're saying. :)



I heard a theory on this some years ago, which is gradually coming back to me as we address this new and important subject. After considerable searching, I can't find it with google.
It pretty much went that people hear the sound differently, but a chicken makes the same chicken noise.

That chickens are influenced by hearing humans talk doesn't seem likely. Though I have heard them imitating other noises like trains or power-tools, but they still sound more like a chicken than a train.

Here is some stuff I DID find on the subject:

Huge List of Animal Noises in different languages. (http://www.eleceng.adelaide.edu.au/Personal/dabbott/animal.html) (including chickens)
Flash-thingy of kids from different countries making animal sounds (http://picks.yahoo.com/picks/i/20030214.html) (untested - my sound is out)

As usual, there seems to be relevant stuff but it's in JSTOR. There was something useful on a US university site but it seems to have been purged. Fascists.


Hehe, it's fun. I knew that dogs bark 'different', but I was not aware about chickens :)

A dog is doing 'woef-woef' in Dutch, 'ouah-ouah' in French

[I]ACCIDENTS

Motor Vehicles 43,900
Firearm 1,400



Only 1,400 accidents a year out of a country of 330 million? Good lord FAR more Americans get hurt getting out of bed in the morning. Many times more Americans are injured or killed eating spolied food or slipping on the bathroom floor. Your going to have to come up with more compelling reasons then this to take away such a cherished right. Even one death is bad and all that bullshit but in order to change our US Constitution, you have to come up with a greater threat to the American people then a slippery puddle of water on the floor provides.

Only 1,400 accidents a year out of a country of 330 million? Good lord FAR more Americans get hurt getting out of bed in the morning. Many times more Americans are injured or killed eating spolied food or slipping on the bathroom floor. Your going to have to come up with more compelling reasons then this to take away such a cherished right. Even one death is bad and all that bullshit but in order to change our US Constitution, you have to come up with a greater threat to the American people then a slippery puddle of water on the floor provides.

It could be 5 times lower. Then it would be at the same level of comparable countries as Germany, UK, France, Holland....

It could be 5 times lower. Then it would be at the same level of comparable countries as Germany, UK, France, Holland....

What makes you think that taking guns away from law abiding people(and causing an extra 2 million crimes a year(on average) in the process) will reduce the number of firearm accidents?

What makes you think that taking guns away from law abiding people(and causing an extra 2 million crimes a year(on average) in the process) will reduce the number of firearm accidents?

We have in Europe less guns AND criminality as in US.

So why do you think it would raise in USA?

If there are less guns legally around, the the illegal market would reduce as well.
To become an illegal gun, mostly it was legal first...

We have in Europe less guns AND criminality as in US.

So why do you think it would raise in USA?
Beacuse as has been stated several times in this thread, there are about 2 million incidents of a gun being used in self defence every year in America. If law abiding citizens no longer had guns, then they could no longer use them in self defence, thus about 2 million crimes that would have been stopped by the victim having a gun will not be stopped.

If there are less guns legally around, the the illegal market would reduce as well.
To become an illegal gun, mostly it was legal first...

Unless it was built illegally. Or imported illegally.

To become an illegal gun, mostly it was legal first...

Statistics please?

And no 'common sense' doesn't count

And yes you are the one who is making the point so you have to back it up. No giving me a link to google or any other laziness

Beacuse as has been stated several times in this thread, there are about 2 million incidents of a gun being used in self defence every year. If law abiding citizens no longer had guns, then thy could no longer use them in self defence, thus about 2 million crimes that would have been stopped by the victim having a gun will not be stopped.

You can't state for sure that 2 million crimes would go on. Criminals will have a hard time to get a gun as well and they are also not in, real need, to get one since almost no one is having one.

A simpel 'hey what are you doing there' could make sure they run away.
Sure, not for the real die hard criminals, but for a big category it will work.
It is working in Europe, that way. Most burglars that are busted just run away. They don't like confrontation, 'cause it is risky. Some Belgians have guns as well, the law abiding citizen could be stronger, or he could just memorize his face to retrieve him later in police files...

And even then, how many law abiding citizens are now killed 'cause they showed their gun? Will we trade their lives again for some money? I think the relatives would do, if it was possible.




Unless it was built illegally. Or imported illegally.

It's not that easy to built a gun and importing is rather risky. Sure both things will happen but at a reasonable rate.

You can't state for sure that 2 million crimes would go on. Criminals will have a hard time to get a gun as well and they are also not in, real need, to get one since almost no one is having one.



The problem is that "disarmament" of the American populace would likely not be universal. The people most likely to refuse to participate would be criminals in possession of firearms.

Statistics please?

And no 'common sense' doesn't count

And yes you are the one who is making the point so you have to back it up. No giving me a link to google or any other laziness

Sorry no. This is so stupid. YES, use your common sense.

There are not that much illegal gun factories in USA. :)
And importing IS really risky. Never took a plane to USA those days?

Most illegal guns, were legal ones. Period.

I believe it is also written in one of the links I gave a few posts earlier.

The problem is that "disarmament" of the American populace would likely not be universal. The people most likely to refuse to participate would be criminals in possession of firearms.

Yes you are right, they will not run to the police to deliver their gun.

But they dry out rather soon. There's evidence for. In one of my links, some US laws made it possible to forbid legally heavy assault weapons.

And miracle by miracle, they soon disapeared from the 'street' as well...

Sorry no. This is so stupid. YES, use your common sense.

There are not that much illegal gun factories in USA. :)
And importing IS really risky. Never took a plane to USA those days?

Most illegal guns, were legal ones. Period.

I believe it is also written in one of the links I gave a few posts earlier.

I give up. My posting style may not be perfect but I hope never to be like this

You can't state for sure that 2 million crimes would go on.
No, I can't. But evidence suggests that they would.
Criminals will have a hard time to get a gun as well and they are also not in, real need, to get one since almost no one is having one.
Unless they *gasp* break the law and keep their guns.

A simpel 'hey what are you doing there' could make sure they run away.
Or make them bash your head in for witnessing their crime.
Sure, not for the real die hard criminals, but for a big category it will work.
You think it will work. You have no evidinence that it will.
It is working in Europe, that way. Most burglars that are busted just run away. They don't like confrontation, 'cause it is risky.
I don't believe you. Prove it.
Some Belgians have guns as well,
So?
the law abiding citizen could be stronger,
Or the criminal could have a gun.
or he could just memorize his face to retrieve him later in police files...
Dead men tell no tales.

And even then, how many law abiding citizens are now killed 'cause they showed their gun?
I don't know of any. But if you think there are, then by all means, attempt to find evidence of this.
Will we trade their lives again for some money? I think the relatives would do, if it was possible.
What? Where did you get this from? Who is talking about trading lives for money?

It's not that easy to built a gun
How do you know?
and importing is rather risky.
But very profitable. The great thing about importing and selling tihngs illegally is that you don't usually pay taxes.

Sorry no. This is so stupid. YES, use your common sense.
Common sense proves nothing. You can't just say 'Use your common sense' and expect us to agree with you. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Most illegal guns, were legal ones. Period.
Prove it.

Yes you are right, they will not run to the police to deliver their gun.

But they dry out rather soon. There's evidence for. In one of my links, some US laws made it possible to forbid legally heavy assault weapons.

And miracle by miracle, they soon disapeared from the 'street' as well...

Heavy assult weapons were never on the street in the first place. There is literally only a small handful of crimes EVER comitted in the history of the US with heavy assult weapons. This was the primary reason people were upset when these guns were banned because for whatever reason they are never ever used to commit crimes. These assult weapon bans have since been lifted in the US and guess what. Heavy assult weapons are STILL never ever used in crimes.

Also guns dont spoil like milk. Guns can function and continue to work for hundreds of years after its manufacture.

In the old days the government had guns and civilians had guns. Now people still have guns but the government has tanks and fighter jets.

Who said anything about limiting civilian weapons ownership to individual firearms?

We have the right to own any weapon we can get our hands on without the use of coercive force or fraud.

Why are you not shooting then?

* Patriot Act *

The PATRIOT act has mostly been ruled constitutional, though certain portions have been struck down. What portions of it do you consider to be tyrannical?

* Guantánamo Bay *

What does Guantanamo Bay have to do with repressing Americans? It's full of illegal combatants.

* Abu Ghraib *

What about it? No Americans were oppressed there.

* Iraq *

What about it?

The PATRIOT act has mostly been ruled constitutional,
It doesn't matter what the Supreme Court says is Constitutional; what matters is whether or not it actually is Constitutional.

The Supreme Court screwed the pooch on this one.

though certain portions have been struck down.
All of it should have been. It's a bunch of far-left socialist-collectivist oppression.
What portions of it do you consider to be tyrannical?
All of it.

You can't state for sure that 2 million crimes would go on. Criminals will have a hard time to get a gun as well and they are also not in, real need, to get one since almost no one is having one.

If you ban guns tomorrow, few, if any, criminals will give up their guns. Many of them already own the guns illegally, so they wouldn't care about one more law.

And who ever said that those 2 million cases of self-defense all involved an attacker using a gun?

A simpel 'hey what are you doing there' could make sure they run away.
Sure, not for the real die hard criminals, but for a big category it will work.

Now you're just making crap up. Even if all guns disappeared tomorrow, criminals would still use knives, lead pipes, baseball bats, axes, shovels or their fists to commit crimes. The only difference is that those 2 million people who had the ability to defend themselves with firearms in the past would be less able to defend themselves from their assailants.


It is working in Europe, that way. Most burglars that are busted just run away. They don't like confrontation, 'cause it is risky.

That's the way it works here, too. But I'd rather have a gun in my hand when confronting a burglar in my house.

Some Belgians have guns as well, the law abiding citizen could be stronger, or he could just memorize his face to retrieve him later in police files...

Of course, without the ability to use firearms to defend themselves, homeowners are in deep crap when faced with a burglar who isn't easily scared, or one who is too high on drugs to care.

And even then, how many law abiding citizens are now killed 'cause they showed their gun?

Again, if you think this happens a lot, provide some evidence for it. Otherwise, it's a meaningless point to raise.

You can't state for sure that 2 million crimes would go on. Criminals will have a hard time to get a gun as well and they are also not in, real need, to get one since almost no one is having one.

A simpel 'hey what are you doing there' could make sure they run away.
Sure, not for the real die hard criminals, but for a big category it will work.
It is working in Europe, that way. Most burglars that are busted just run away. They don't like confrontation, 'cause it is risky. Some Belgians have guns as well, the law abiding citizen could be stronger, or he could just memorize his face to retrieve him later in police files...

And even then, how many law abiding citizens are now killed 'cause they showed their gun? Will we trade their lives again for some money? I think the relatives would do, if it was possible.






It's not that easy to built a gun and importing is rather risky. Sure both things will happen but at a reasonable rate.

You're wildly speculating, and making a lot of assumptions in this thread. Even if all firearms magically disappeared (including criminals firearms), the US is not/will never be Europe (in regards to crime rate), as the culture is too different.

And building a firearm isn't rocket science. There are MANY people in the US that do it, simply because they like the idea of making a very personalized firearm (some people even experiment with new calibers of their own design). Others make their own firearms because they don't want the government to know what they have. All in all though, it would not take a lot of tools or materials to make an expedient firearm. Here's a few links:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/15/homemade-firearms-of.html

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?file=/2007/10/19/nation/20071019103253&sec=nation

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/08/2003078798

http://www.640toronto.com/news/metro.cfm?cat=7428218912&rem=66255&red=80121823aPBIny&wids=410&gi=1&gm=metro.cfm

Yes you are right, they will not run to the police to deliver their gun.

But they dry out rather soon. There's evidence for. In one of my links, some US laws made it possible to forbid legally heavy assault weapons.

And miracle by miracle, they soon disapeared from the 'street' as well...

Are you referring to the 1934 National Firearms Act?

Also, full auto/select fire weapons are not banned. Civilians can own them (as long as they were manufactured before 1986), as long as they can afford them (they're pretty expensive compared to their semi-auto counterparts), and as long as they get the ATF tax stamp (I've outlined how this procedure works in many threads, including this one). They haven't disappeared, many people still have them. Then again, most of those firearms were not a problem (with the exception being the mafia during the '20s and 30's).

Here's a video, with at least one minigun, .30 cal tripod mounted machine guns, and others: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5854686068870249151

You want links, you get links.


In January 2001, 59% of the respondents in an ABC News/Washington Post survey said they favoured stricter gun control laws.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml

Reports & stats

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6562529.stm

ACCIDENTS

Motor Vehicles 43,900
Firearm 1,400

"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts."

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp

Firearms and Crime Statistics

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


I found these in 5 minutes...

That's nice. None of those links show anything even remotely close to what you were claiming. It's easy to find newspaper articles against firearms. Most of them are so innaccurate as to be laughable.

You want links, you get links.


In January 2001, 59% of the respondents in an ABC News/Washington Post survey said they favoured stricter gun control laws.
There's no proof that's a random survey. It could have been an online poll attatched to a news story about guns. So basically, it's worthless.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/people/features/ihavearightto/four_b/casestudy_art29.shtml
From the article:A recent poll for the organisation suggested that 52% of people had favourable views on the NRA compared to 32% who did not.
That supports your point how?
some 56% of people did however tell Gallup that they wanted stricter laws. However, when given the choice in that poll between enforcing current gun laws or passing new gun laws in addition to enforcing the existing ones, most people preferred simple enforcement.
So most Americans like the laws the way they are.

Reports & stats

http://www.unicri.it/wwd/analysis/icvs/pdf_files/understanding_files/19_GUN%20OWNERSHIP.pdf
Faulty conclusion. Doesn't show one causes the other.

The risk of being killed by a firearm in the US is higher than in any other Western nation. Of countries outside war zones, the risk is greatest in South Africa, according to a United Nations report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6562529.stm
Doesn't prove that legally owned and obtained guns are a problem.

ACCIDENTS

Motor Vehicles 43,900
Firearm 1,400

"And since the crime bill was enacted, 19 of the deadliest assault weapons are harder to find on our streets. We will never know how many tragedies we've avoided because of these efforts."

http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
Same source:
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%. (1)
Care to speak to that?

When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:

Homicide rate
Florida -36%
United States -0.4%

firearm homicide rate
Florida-37%
United States+15%

handgun homicide rate
Florida-41%
United States+24%
(3)


* 221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)
* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)
Further proving my point.

Firearms and Crime Statistics

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/guns.htm
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993, then slightly increased in 2005.
And if you go to the website and look at the graph, it's really quite dramatic. Gun laws didn't really change during that time, yet firearm crime damatically decreased. So that goes more to say that the problem isn't gun ownership or gun laws.
Nonfatal firearm crime rates have declined since 1994, before increasing in 2005.
After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm.


I found these in 5 minutes...
Didn't find anything to substantiate YOUR claim though, but thanks for finding stats to prove my claim.:D

Edit: I made the color of the quotes from the article different colors to distinguish from you comments.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.



So I can pwn n00bs.




:p

I don't necessarily need a gun, I have one (two actually) because I enjoy target shooting and because squirrels and deer are quite tasty.

That's nice. None of those links show anything even remotely close to what you were claiming. It's easy to find newspaper articles against firearms. Most of them are so innaccurate as to be laughable.
In fact, most of them demolished his position.

I pointed out to him earlier that statistics alone prove little; that causation must also be established. Might as well have said that to a brick wall.

Excellent. NSG needs more self-proclaimed terrorists.

We're not getting enough heat from The Man. I want my fair share of oppression!

I ask you this: if liberty is worth more than all else, what do you do if all the gun owners (by some magic of political consensus) suddenly rise up against tyranny together, but the MAJORITY of US citizens strongly oppose that?

There's an assumption I rely on: the majority of US citizens are not armed. You may call me on that, but I suggest you check the figures first.

If your answer is "we gun owners are the arbiters of liberty, we decide" then this proposition follows logically:

"Liberty is more important than democracy."

You and Edwinasia are a fair match for each other I say ! :D

Gun owners arn't some far off fringe group. At least 1/3rd of american households have one or more firearms in the home. Owning a firearm does not entail any specific political line. Gun owners come from everywhere on the political spectrum.

The people decide when the government crosses the line into tyranny. And gun owners make up a significant portion of the People.

I ask you this: if liberty is worth more than all else, what do you do if all the gun owners (by some magic of political consensus) suddenly rise up against tyranny together, but the MAJORITY of US citizens strongly oppose that?

There's an assumption I rely on: the majority of US citizens are not armed. You may call me on that, but I suggest you check the figures first.

If your answer is "we gun owners are the arbiters of liberty, we decide"
That's not the answer; owning a gun does not necessarily mean that one knows what liberty really is.

However, this:

"Liberty is more important than democracy."
is in fact true.

The form of government is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. Too many people forget that.

Gun owners arn't some far off fringe group. At least 1/3rd of american households have one or more firearms in the home.

Well, if that figure is accurate it should clear something up for Edwinia. Even if several people in one house are assumed to be defended by one gun (which is unsupportable), a third of US adults have a gun.

If we allow for the possibility that a disproportionate number of those households, compared to non-gun-containing households, will have less than the average number of residents, the number would have to be lower.

I think we can discount households with no person of gun-owning age. There wouldn't be many.

If you've got the figures, feel free to proudly say what proportion of US adults personally own a gun. I'm going to take a wild guess and say 20%.



The people decide when the government crosses the line into tyranny. And gun owners make up a significant portion of the People.

Significant, you say? I wonder what you mean ...

It is working in Europe, that way. Most burglars that are busted just run away. They don't like confrontation, 'cause it is risky. Some Belgians have guns as well, the law abiding citizen could be stronger, or he could just memorize his face to retrieve him later in police files...The areas in America that have the highest crime rate are inner cities, and those areas tend to have strict gun control laws that obviously do not work as well as they should. Most parts of America outside of the inner city are just as safe as Europe. Many illegal gun owners are gang members, not wimpy burglars who are afraid of confrontation like you describe. Legal gun owners tend to live far from the cities in remote areas.

Well, if that figure is accurate it should clear something up for Edwinia. Even if several people in one house are assumed to be defended by one gun (which is unsupportable), a third of US adults have a gun.

If we allow for the possibility that a disproportionate number of those households, compared to non-gun-containing households, will have less than the average number of residents, the number would have to be lower.

I think we can discount households with no person of gun-owning age. There wouldn't be many.

If you've got the figures, feel free to proudly say what proportion of US adults personally own a gun. I'm going to take a wild guess and say 20%.




Significant, you say? I wonder what you mean ...

You're numbers are pretty close to the GSS surveys. The "official" 2006 number is 21.6. The main contention against those is that they are phone based and their accuracy on certain subjects is questioned.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

I'm living in Belgium for almost 40 years.
Not one time, I met a burglar face-to-face.
Not one time I was in need for a gun.

Consider yourself lucky, then.

I know that criminality is some higher in US, but it's still not that hard. Compare their rates with the ones of South Africa, Columbia and others and US is rather a land at peace.

Americans are also politcally apathetic ... we had one revolution and one civil war, but now we're kinda done with the torches & pitchforks thing.

I am rather sure that the average USAian never will meet a burglar face-to-face.

I have - twice. I didn't own a gun back then.

That was then. Now I sleep with a loaded AK-47 under my bed.

This is common knowledge amongst the local crackhead community, mostly due to my advertising this fact and showing it to them on several occasions.

I haven't seen a burglar since then.

Still, why do they need such guns?

I live in Detroit.

That's not the answer; owning a gun does not necessarily mean that one knows what liberty really is.

And how does one know what liberty really is?
If I didn't know, and you did, could you explain it to me briefly?

However, this:

"Liberty is more important than democracy."

is in fact true.

OK. I'm not too happy about the State taking some of my power, which by the social contract I'm born into delegates to it, and granting it to groups inside the country who arm and train even as they proclaim their right to stage a violent coup against the will of the majority.

That doesn't seem to work out well anywhere.

Don't bother replying with "disarming the populace is always followed by tyranny" because (a) it doesn't apply to my country, and (b) it's a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy.

The form of government is only a means to an end, not an end in itself. Too many people forget that.

Eeew! That's just too icky. Even I have my limits.

EDIT: 3,000th post!

You're numbers are pretty close to the GSS surveys. The "official" 2006 number is 21.6. The main contention against those is that they are phone based and their accuracy on certain subjects is questioned.

I can't make any sense out of the GSS website :(

Consider yourself lucky, then.
That was then. Now I sleep with a loaded AK-47 under my bed.

This is common knowledge amongst the local crackhead community, mostly due to my advertising this fact and showing it to them on several occasions.

I haven't seen a burglar since then.



I live in Detroit.
I've often thought the folks that think WE don't need guns should advertise that THEY don't have them.

As simple sign in the window stating that "This house is proudly gun-free", should be enough.

I wouldn't have a problem putting up a small sign to the contrary...

I live in Detroit.

Which part?

I can't make any sense out of the GSS website :(

Here ya' go (http://www.norc.org/NR/rdonlyres/30013B80-5BA9-4764-9DEA-57B135BBD51B/0/PublicAttitudestowardsReglulationofFirearms2007.pdf):

It's interesting to note that quite a few of the survey responses they get differ significantly from other surveys taken:

http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=28978

Well, if that figure is accurate it should clear something up for Edwinia. Even if several people in one house are assumed to be defended by one gun (which is unsupportable), a third of US adults have a gun.

If we allow for the possibility that a disproportionate number of those households, compared to non-gun-containing households, will have less than the average number of residents, the number would have to be lower.

I think we can discount households with no person of gun-owning age. There wouldn't be many.

If you've got the figures, feel free to proudly say what proportion of US adults personally own a gun. I'm going to take a wild guess and say 20%.

-----
Significant, you say? I wonder what you mean ...

This PDF is from the Brady Campaign, an Anti-gun lobbying group.

http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/home.pdf


An estimated 33-40% of households own guns [3, 4] and approximately 44-51 million Americans
personally own guns.[5, 6] As of 1994, Americans owned an estimated 192 million firearms.[7]

I admit I was a wee bit off on my numbers. I apologise.

I guess my point is, owning a firearm is part of who you are, but it does not define what you are. When I go to the local shooting range, I find a real cross section of the local community present. Democrats, Republicans, Whites, Blacks, Hispanics, Men, and Women are all quite well represented.

Guns arn't just for the southern Republican. Guns are for everyone.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/14378394/detail.html

You're numbers are pretty close to the GSS surveys. The "official" 2006 number is 21.6. The main contention against those is that they are phone based and their accuracy on certain subjects is questioned.

I can believe that a phone survey that asks whether the person owns a firearm would be inaccurate. I know if someone that I didn't know called me up, and started asking me if I had a firearm, I'd tell them no (even though I do own one).

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

I'm living in Belgium for almost 40 years.
Not one time, I met a burglar face-to-face.
Not one time I was in need for a gun.

I know that criminality is some higher in US, but it's still not that hard. Compare their rates with the ones of South Africa, Columbia and others and US is rather a land at peace.

I am rather sure that the average USAian never will meet a burglar face-to-face.

Still, why do they need such guns?

It seems they are very afraid from something. They act like chickens. TOK TOK TOOOOK !

The only time you would ever need a gun in the USA:

1. You piss off gang members and they're looking for you
2. You live past the Mason-Dixon line and you're a minority
3. You yourself are a criminal

http://www.kirotv.com/news/14378394/detail.html

Usually, when someone posts a link like that in a discussion, they comment on it.

But I guess it goes to show that criminals will act in an unpredictable manner, if they're caught. Some flee, some surrender, and some will chase the residents out of the house and shoot them in order to get rid of witnesses. Kind of goes against Edwinasia's statements away though.

A simple 'hey what are you doing there' could make sure they run away.
Sure, not for the real die hard criminals, but for a big category it will work.
It is working in Europe, that way. Most burglars that are busted just run away. They don't like confrontation, 'cause it is risky. Some Belgians have guns as well, the law abiding citizen could be stronger, or he could just memorize his face to retrieve him later in police files...

The only time you would ever need a gun in the USA:

1. You piss off gang members and they're looking for you
2. You live past the Mason-Dixon line and you're a minority
3. You yourself are a criminal

Prove that is the only times you'd need a firearm.

My brother in law hunts to supplement the food that his family buys at the store. He has also used firearms to kill woodchucks that were tearing up his yard (causing trip hazards for his children).

I need a rifle for target shooting, as it's kind of hard to hit a target that's 100 yards+ without one (I need to practice, so that I can compete if I get good enough).

Farmers/ranchers may need rifles if they have a lot of predators in their area, to protect their livestock, or to protect their crops from wild animals that may destroy them (deer, feral hogs, etc).

Usually, when someone posts a link like that in a discussion, they comment on it.

In Soviet Kirotv, links comment on you.

In Soviet Kirotv, links comment on you.

*kicks Yakov Smirnoff for starting that lame joke*

Posting a news report on one incident isn't really enough to call a post. You were quite right.

As to the lame joke: this is the first time I've done it (I'm pretty sure.) Doesn't everyone get one?

As to the lame joke: this is the first time I've done it (I'm pretty sure.) Doesn't everyone get one?

Only one :). I spent my lame joke with an ugly cat picture that had a Star Wars quote on it (which I can't find anymore, because photobucket apparently deleted it :().

My mosin-nagant is a historical piece. *nods*

The only time you would ever need a gun in the USA:

1. You piss off gang members and they're looking for you
2. You live past the Mason-Dixon line and you're a minority
3. You yourself are a criminal

You sir, are a fool.

My mosin-nagant is a historical piece. *nods*

Pics?

The Armenians can answer that question with their tragic history... they were disarmed just before the genocide.

If the State has the monopoly of violence, how can anyone react if it a loony takes over the power and implements a brutal dictatorship?

You sir, are a fool.

Huh? Why would you pick that one silly post out of all the crazy stuff in this thread?

Looked like Jayate was trying to be clever about saying "self-defence is the only reason to need a gun."

Trying to be clever was a mistake probably, but the inference is not so wrong ...

Pics?

Hey! Not fair!

You "right to a gun" lot hold the field here, largely due to the rather stupid assault plan of the OP.

Posting up gun porn would only be gloating. A little decorum, please!

Hey! Not fair!

You "right to a gun" lot hold the field here, largely due to the rather stupid assault plan of the OP.

Posting up gun porn would only be gloating. A little decorum, please!

What, like this? :D http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg *

*Note that the checkerboard pattern on the rifle stock is due to the case I had it stored in.

What, like this? :D http://img96.imageshack.us/img96/1135/1000045ur3.jpg *

*Note that the checkerboard pattern on the rifle stock is due to the case I had it stored in.

It's lying out nicely I must admit. Thx for keeping it soft-core ...

I need a gun because I don't like rodents. Fortunately, their skulls are nice and brittle, so I don't need anything more than an air pistol, which is nice because California requires some kind of permit and class to own a handgun, which is silly.

You lie around in your basement waiting for rodents, and you actually have good enough aim to hit them in the head with an airsoft gun?

Which part?

Originally the Midtown area. Pretty quiet, but lots of really annoying bums.

For a brief while I was in Hamtramck - what a nightmare that was. The Serbs & Bosnians decided to take their little civil war to America with them.

Next was the Corktown Area by the train station. Nice neighborhood but our landlady insisted on keeping all utilities in her name, which meant they kept getting shut off.

Now I'm in the Eastern Market area. Crackheads everywhere.

You lie around in your basement waiting for rodents, and you actually have good enough aim to hit them in the head with an airsoft gun?

Who? Me? (Check out the quote function sometime - it's cool.) ;)

Answer: no. I'm not sure what airsoft is, but I use an old .22 pump air pistol. It could probably penetrate a human skull from less than 30 feet if fully compressed, especially with the steel-tipped darts I use. They don't even produce those anymore, I don't think.

But I don't have a basement - I shoot mostly gophers and rats, outside. I manage to hit them in their heads about 80% of the time, in the case of gophers, but of course I'll hit a rat anyplace it lets me. :p

What, a gun which works on air and shoots reusable ammunition? What is that, some commie thing? ;)

Probably not. But odds are high that they didn't kill that many people if guns were not that easy to get.

School-shooting exist in Europe as well. But much much less as in US.
And so is the level of gun ownership

Just a question: How many people in their thirties or forties (or older) are involved in school shootings?

How many people in their thirties and forties are involved in office shootings? Age really doesn't have much to do with it if you're unstable. Also about Columbine, the kids used pipe bombs as well but they didn't go off. Trust me there still would have been a Columbine with out the guns. (BTW I heard that from a survivor of Columbine. He was in the cafeteria where they planted the pipe bombs.)

In England and Wales, there were 644,049 burglaries, which is about 8000ish per million residents. Not particularly different.

As far as Robbery goes, we have about 1.6 per million residents. You have about 1.5 per million residents.

Keep also in mind that the areas in which people will have guns in the US, as in their homes, have actually increased in their rates of robbery over the last few years.

This basically shows that there is very, very little correlation between such crimes and gun ownership - the only thing that people owning firearms leads to in such cases is usually robbers getting shot and killed, or, possibly more tragically, the victims themselves being killed or wounded.

Isn't there stats saying the number of home invasions with the resident at home is higher in Europe as opposed to the US?

The only time you would ever need a gun in the USA:

1. You piss off gang members and they're looking for you

I can't disagree with this one.

2. You live past the Mason-Dixon line and you're a minority

Utter nonsense. The large majority of crimes committed against minorities is committed by other members of minority groups. White on black crime is quite rare (certainly less rare than black on white crime, for example).

3. You yourself are a criminal

Or you're one of those 2 million or so people who defended themselves from criminals last year with the use of a firearm.

Just putting this out there:
The weapons I own:

M1 Garand Rifle
I absolutely adore this rifle... I use this for hunting, and target. Most commonly used.

AK-74
I own this weapon simply to prove a point. (Follows all regulations) I also find it to be an excellently made assault rifle.

Remington Model 799
My first rifle... .22, still works really well. Target and light hunting.

Desert Eagle
No reason... once again to prove a point... and to scare the crap out of anyone stupid to invade my house. 50 cal... (more of a collectors item...)

Walther P99
Auto, just my all purpose sidearm.

Remington 870
The shotgun... hunting and slightly more powerful home protection.

(As a side note, I assure you these are all legal with the proper permits)

Originally the Midtown area. Pretty quiet, but lots of really annoying bums.

For a brief while I was in Hamtramck - what a nightmare that was. The Serbs & Bosnians decided to take their little civil war to America with them.

Next was the Corktown Area by the train station. Nice neighborhood but our landlady insisted on keeping all utilities in her name, which meant they kept getting shut off.

Now I'm in the Eastern Market area. Crackheads everywhere.

My sister recently moved to Inkster from Mount Pleasant to live with her fiancé. I'd never really had any reason to go to Detroit before, so I was rather shocked at the drastic differences between communities like West Bloomfield and Inkster, and Inkster isn't even all that bad.

AK-74
I own this weapon simply to prove a point. (Follows all regulations) I also find it to be an excellently made assault rifle.

What do you think of the 5.45mm round? I have an AK-47 and found that the 7.62x39 round isn't nearly as bad as I thought it would be.

Desert Eagle
No reason... once again to prove a point... and to scare the crap out of anyone stupid to invade my house. 50 cal... (more of a collectors item...)


Out of curiosity, which one of the other guns you listed WOULDNT scare the crap out of an invader?

But I don't have a basement - I shoot mostly gophers and rats, outside. I manage to hit them in their heads about 80% of the time, in the case of gophers, but of course I'll hit a rat anyplace it lets me. :p

Yes but can you bullseye womp rats in your T-16?

I need a gun to kill you.

I am thinking about buying a Nuke.

Should I buy an American or a Russian one?

I'm wondering if I would use it, when some criminal is entering my garden, Nuke in its pockets... Yes! I would Nuke the bastard! Hey, he's running on my fresh mowed garden! It's my property! Mine, mine, mine! Kill him!

Hey, it's my right, it's written in my f*cking constitution!

And hell no, my America wouldn't be safer by less Nukes. We are a different culture, we need Nukes!

The NNA (National Nuke Association) says: "Better have a Nuke and not needing one, then having no Nuke when needing one!"

Yeah, yeah, I know there are school kids that bring Nukes to school and destroy the entire state, but the only answer to stop them is...MORE NUKES! Of course!

Outlaw Nukes? Insane. Those disgusting bla... eh criminals will create Nukes by themselves. It's rather easy, on the internet is explained how to do it!

Or they import them illegally. Yes, it's hard to smuggle, but hey, one can make lots of profit...

And btw do you have proof? Do you have proof that Nukes are killing people? Nukes don't kill people, imbecile! It are the people, doh!

I am thinking about buying a Nuke.

Should I buy an American or a Russian one?

I'm wondering if I would use it, when some criminal is entering my garden, Nuke in its pockets... Yes! I would Nuke the bastard! Hey, he's running on my fresh mowed garden! It's my property! Mine, mine, mine! Kill him!

Hey, it's my right, it's written in my f*cking constitution!

And hell no, my America wouldn't be safer by less Nukes. We are a different culture, we need Nukes!

The NNA (National Nuke Association) says: "Better have a Nuke and not needing one, then having no Nuke when needing one!"

Yeah, yeah, I know there are school kids that bring Nukes to school and destroy the entire state, but the only answer to stop them is...MORE NUKES! Of course!

Slippery-slope, slippery-slope,let's all slide down the slippery slope.

This really is like playing whack-a-mole. All your arguments are shot down so you pop up w/ another completely inane one off to one side. When this one gets smacked down, you'll pop up the original one again.

I am thinking about buying a Nuke.

Should I buy an American or a Russian one?

I'm wondering if I would use it, when some criminal is entering my garden, Nuke in its pockets... Yes! I would Nuke the bastard! Hey, he's running on my fresh mowed garden! It's my property! Mine, mine, mine! Kill him!

Hey, it's my right, it's written in my f*cking constitution!

And hell no, my America wouldn't be safer by less Nukes. We are a different culture, we need Nukes!

The NNA (National Nuke Association) says: "Better have a Nuke and not needing one, then having no Nuke when needing one!"

Yeah, yeah, I know there are school kids that bring Nukes to school and destroy the entire state, but the only answer to stop them is...MORE NUKES! Of course!

Your analogy fails, try again.

Your analogy fails, try again.

Why? You fail by saying where it fails.

Do you have proof it fails?

Whahaha!

Slippery-slope, slippery-slope,let's all slide down the slippery slope.

This really is like playing whack-a-mole. All your arguments are shot down so you pop up w/ another completely inane one off to one side. When this one gets smacked down, you'll pop up the original one again.

Sure. I feel safe in Europe. No gun under my pillow.

I'm not afraid of some black guy.
The kids can enter school tomorrow, guarantied gun-free and this without the need for metal detectors.

And how are you? :)

I think it is just a fact of life that most people from countries where gun ownership is not the norm just don't 'get' the whole gun thing and people from countries where gun ownership is the norm, just don't 'get' what is wrong with it.

Why? You fail by saying where it fails.

Do you have proof it fails?

Yes. Nukes are not analagous to guns. A single nuke used once can, and would almost certainly, kill millions of people. A single gun used once could kill one person. Maybe two or three if they're lined up, but it's very very unlikely. You see how the two are very very different? You see how they're not interchangable?

Sure. I feel safe in Europe. No gun under my pillow.

I'm not afraid of some black guy.
The kids can enter school tomorrow, guarantied gun-free and this without the need for metal detectors.

And how are you? :)

You just don't learn, do you? Just because YOU don't need a gun doesn't mean that nobody needs a gun.

Yes. Nukes are not analagous to guns. A single nuke used once can, and would almost certainly, kill millions of people. A single gun used once could kill one person. Maybe two or three if they're lined up, but it's very very unlikely. You see how the two are very very different? You see how they're not interchangable?

Millions? Nah. I'll buy a small one, for home use only :)

And are you saying that ONE AK-47 or one lousy shotgun, only can kill 1 person, or maybe 2 or 3 if they're lined?

Millions? Nah. I'll buy a small one, for home use only :)
Nukes need to be big. You need a lot of conventional explosives to set of the nuclear reaction.

And are you saying that ONE AK-47 or one lousy shotgun, only can kill 1 person, or maybe 2 or 3 if they're lined?

Used once, an AK-47 could kill 2 or 3 people if they were lined up, maybe. A shotgun almost certainly couldn't kill more than one person.

Nukes need to be big. You need a lot of conventional explosives to set of the nuclear reaction.



Used once, an AK-47 could kill 2 or 3 people if they were lined up, maybe. A shotgun almost certainly couldn't kill more than one person.

Oh! I was in the army once. I had an FNC (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as24-e.htm).

A toy that's comparable to the AK-47 but better.

One single magazine could hold 30 rounds.

I could use it shot per shot. So 1 magazine could kill 15 to 30 people.

And I could use a fresh magazine as well... I had 4 to 6 magazine on me...

And you can't do something similar with an AK-47?

Oh! I was in the army once. I had an FNC (http://world.guns.ru/assault/as24-e.htm).

A toy that's comparable to the AK-47 but better.

One single magazine could hold 30 rounds.

I could use it shot per shot. So 1 magazine could kill 15 to 30 people.

And I could use a fresh magazine as well... I had 4 to 6 magazine on me...

And you can't do something similar with an AK-47?

I don't think you understand what I mean by using the gun once. I mean firing it once. One bullet from an AK-47 will not kill 30 people. Well, not directly.

You just don't learn, do you? Just because YOU don't need a gun doesn't mean that nobody needs a gun.

Well, it's not like food, water or air, isn't?

I have none and I'm still alive.

Well, it's not like food, water or air, isn't?

I have none and I'm still alive.

Just because you don't need one doesn't mean nobody else does. I don't need antibiotics(not right now anyway). Does that mean nobody else does?

Just because you don't need one doesn't mean nobody else does. I don't need antibiotics(not right now anyway). Does that mean nobody else does?

Well, why do you need a gun?

Well, why do you need a gun?

I don't need a gun. Nor do I have one. Nor do I think that not needing one should stop me from owning one, if I wanted to.

I don't need a gun. Nor do I have one. Nor do I think that not needing one should stop me from owning one, if I wanted to.

So you don't need it.

*APLAUSE*

So you don't need it.

*APLAUSE*

Why are you applauding me for not needing a gun?

So you don't need it.

*APLAUSE*

I don't need a computer......*tosses it out with the garbage*

Regarding the original post-

Libertarian Americans, a group that views gun ownership as a fundamental right, believe an individual should be able to use a gun to defend his home and his self. But more than that they believe that it is the individual's duty, rather than the government's, to defend the entire nation. This is a guarantee that the government can never grow more powerful than the people and tyranny can be fought off.

It is not necessary to justify gun ownership by the presence of crime, the need for hunting weapons or anything else. Guns are a tool necessary to guarantee individual autonomy. The ethical justification is individualist rather than utilitarian.

Sure. I feel safe in Europe. No gun under my pillow.

I'm not afraid of some black guy.
The kids can enter school tomorrow, guarantied gun-free and this without the need for metal detectors.

And how are you? :)

So nice you have to add racism to your hoplophobia.

So nice you have to add racism to your hoplophobia.

Zing!

Also nice to see he missed the, 'Just because you or I don't need one doesn't mean nobody needs one' point, as well as the 'You don't have to need something to be allowed to have it.'

So nice you have to add racism to your hoplophobia.

Ridiculous and you know it.

Ridiculous and you know it.

Seems you're the only one talking about being afraid of "black people". You have to defend your hoplophobia by claiming those who enjoy firearms are racist.

The only thing 'ridiculous' have been your arguments.

I don't need a computer......*tosses it out with the garbage*

I don't need my iPod.

*shoots it with my gun*

And you still haven't provided any kind of proof that actually helps your case Edwinsia.

I don't need my iPod.

*shoots it with my gun*

Nobody needs an Ipod.

I have a question for Edwinasia...

Why do you keep asking the same question when many people have already told you they don't need a firearm, they just want one?

Just because you don't need one or have the freedom to have one, doesn't mean you should just keep questioning the motive of other people. If someone uses a firearm for sinister porpoises then they have to deal with it. I'm sure you have crazies there in the UK that are still homicidal even without a firearm. The US has taken steps to keep firearms out of these homicidal people. Even so, it really isn't that hard to get illegal firearms, seeing as a teacher I had once had some. A teacher...

Heh, I added some other stuff too.

And you still haven't provided any kind of proof that actually helps your case Edwinsia.

It's interesting to note that INTERPOL stopped releasing data to the public for the very reason that people were using it to make comparisons between dissimilar countries.

Nobody needs an Ipod.

a friend of mine needs hers for her job......but I suppose any MP3 player would work....if it could dock with the sound system at her place like her Ipod does.

Nobody needs an Ipod.

Of course noone needs an ipod. An iphone however...

Of course noone needs an ipod. An iphone however...

Baaah same bloody thing innit!

Why not have an iRiver, and a mobile phone? Now I'm not a techonphobe, by a long shot, but what is it with this longing for integrating devices?

Baaah same bloody thing innit!

Why not have an iRiver, and a mobile phone? Now I'm not a techonphobe, by a long shot, but what is it with this longing for integrating devices?

Because you can't put linux on an iRiver.

Baaah same bloody thing innit!

Why not have an iRiver, and a mobile phone? Now I'm not a techonphobe, by a long shot, but what is it with this longing for integrating devices?

Sorry for the complete hijack but ill tell you why my iphone makes my life easier. My mother fell ill and had to go to the hospital. When i got there , she was asleep. So i watched a few videos on youtube, listened to a bit of music on the ipod and played some suduko. I had to run from the hospital to my mothers house, she had just moved and i had no idea how to get to her new place from the hospital. I used the map feature on the phone and got there with ease. On the drive back home googled the phone # for a pizza place and the phone # just pops up on the screen and i was able to oneclick the phone number and have a pie ordered by the end of the redlight. It then buzzed to remind me of an appointment i had scheduled. What more do you want from a phone?

Sorry for the complete hijack but ill tell you why my iphone makes my life easier. My mother fell ill and had to go to the hospital. When i got there , she was asleep. So i watched a few videos on youtube, listened to a bit of music on the ipod and played some suduko. I had to run from the hospital to my mothers house, she had just moved and i had no idea how to get to her new place from the hospital. I used the map feature on the phone and got there with ease. On the drive back home googled the phone # for a pizza place and the phone # just pops up on the screen and i was able to oneclick the phone number and have a pie ordered by the end of the redlight. It then buzzed to remind me of an appointment i had scheduled. What more do you want from a phone?

To further threadjack, why on earth would you google a phone number when you can just use goog-411?

this has to be the STUPIDEST thread I have seen in a long time.

Apparently, I've learned so far that:
- if you are in favor of owning a gun, you are a racist.

- if you are NOT in favor of guns, it's because you live in the Garden of Eden.

- oh, and the British are scary.

Whatever.

I really need to stop reading these things.....

Sorry for the complete hijack but ill tell you why my iphone makes my life easier. My mother fell ill and had to go to the hospital. When i got there , she was asleep. So i watched a few videos on youtube, listened to a bit of music on the ipod and played some suduko. I had to run from the hospital to my mothers house, she had just moved and i had no idea how to get to her new place from the hospital. I used the map feature on the phone and got there with ease. On the drive back home googled the phone # for a pizza place and the phone # just pops up on the screen and i was able to oneclick the phone number and have a pie ordered by the end of the redlight. It then buzzed to remind me of an appointment i had scheduled. What more do you want from a phone?
Alexander Bell is spinning in his grave.

Also nice to see he missed the, 'Just because you or I don't need one doesn't mean nobody needs one' point, as well as the 'You don't have to need something to be allowed to have it.'

There are many things you don't need, until you do. Things like antibiotics, x-ray machines, painkillers, vaccines etc.

Following our Belgian friend's logic, since he personally may not need any of these things right at this moment, then nobody else could ever need them, either.

I am thinking about buying a Nuke.

Should I buy an American or a Russian one?

I'm wondering if I would use it, when some criminal is entering my garden, Nuke in its pockets... Yes! I would Nuke the bastard! Hey, he's running on my fresh mowed garden! It's my property! Mine, mine, mine! Kill him!

Hey, it's my right, it's written in my f*cking constitution!

And hell no, my America wouldn't be safer by less Nukes. We are a different culture, we need Nukes!

The NNA (National Nuke Association) says: "Better have a Nuke and not needing one, then having no Nuke when needing one!"

Yeah, yeah, I know there are school kids that bring Nukes to school and destroy the entire state, but the only answer to stop them is...MORE NUKES! Of course!

Outlaw Nukes? Insane. Those disgusting bla... eh criminals will create Nukes by themselves. It's rather easy, on the internet is explained how to do it!

Or they import them illegally. Yes, it's hard to smuggle, but hey, one can make lots of profit...

And btw do you have proof? Do you have proof that Nukes are killing people? Nukes don't kill people, imbecile! It are the people, doh!

http://jadn.com/~bob/audio/sadstrange.wav

Nukes ≠ firearms.

...sinister porpoises...

Those damn dolphins! :upyours:



:D

Baaah same bloody thing innit!

Why not have an iRiver, and a mobile phone? Now I'm not a techonphobe, by a long shot, but what is it with this longing for integrating devices?

It takes up less pocket space.

It takes up less pocket space.

Some time in the future, your phone, mp3 player, camera, mini-computer and vibrator will all be integrated into your pants. Takes up 0 pocket space!

Some time in the future, your phone, mp3 player, camera, mini-computer and vibrator will all be integrated into your pants. Takes up 0 pocket space!
I saw your location and giggled.

I saw your location and giggled.

Everything integrated into your pants! iPants! iSkirts for the laydees. iParachutepants for MC Hammer! iKilts for the Scotsmen!

Everything integrated into your pants! iPants! iSkirts for the laydees. iParachutepants for MC Hammer! iKilts for the Scotsmen!

iGuns? iFreann?

this has to be the STUPIDEST thread I have seen in a long time.

Apparently, I've learned so far that:
- if you are in favor of owning a gun, you are a racist.

- if you are NOT in favor of guns, it's because you live in the Garden of Eden.

- oh, and the British are scary.

Whatever.

I really need to stop reading these things.....


In a long time? When I look to the left...

BeeGeesOpia

Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 6

...I see probably a liar. You just saw 5 other threads. Maximum.

Right and BeeGeesOpia cannot possibly be a lurker. :rolleyes:

MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE


Only the following people are allowed to get a shooting device:

Hunters
• Restricted to 1 piece
• Only shotguns or rifles (so no deer hunting anymore with an AK-47)
• Need an official licence
• Licence is delivered after mandatory schooling (and paying a hunting fee)
• Rifle will be delivered after a waiting time of 90 days.

Collectors
• Can have every type of weapon
• All shooting devices are sabotaged in such a manner that it’s not repairable anymore and can't be used for any shooting

Police men & other government services that are in a need for weapons (FBI, CIA, DEA, etc…)
• No restrictions.

Gun Clubs
• Can have every type of weapon
• Guns stay in the club


All the other people will have to deliver their gun(s) before 1 December 2007 at a police station.

Be warned: People that are in possession of any gun, rifle, machinegun or pistol after 1 December 2007 will have to pay $10,000 for each shooting device.

The weapons will be destroyed for free.

Restricted to 1 piece

But what if I want to hunt different things? I hunt small game and deer, which require rather differently sized rounds.

Only shotguns or rifles (so no deer hunting anymore with an AK-47

I don't know about other states, but in Michigan you can't really hunt deer with an AK-47 anyway, since it holds more than 10 rounds, and I've never seen a 10 round magazine for them.

Anyway, just so you know, your being on this forum has made me learn to appreciate that famous Belgian humor. It's a bit hard to figure out at first, but funny.

But what if I want to hunt different things? I hunt small game and deer, which require rather differently sized rounds.

One size fits all.

I don't know about other states, but in Michigan you can't really hunt deer with an AK-47 anyway, since it holds more than 10 rounds, and I've never seen a 10 round magazine for them.

Don't bring up the idea to your local government.

Anyway, just so you know, your being on this forum has made me learn to appreciate that famous Belgian humor. It's a bit hard to figure out at first, but funny.

How said I'm laughing? I'm very serious! ;)