NationStates Jolt Archive

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.

Role playing posts should be kept to NationStates and International Incidents forums. NSG is for non-roleplaying posts.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Thank you for voicing your opinions on the matter of gun ownership as it applies to your various countries. I'm happy to read them from a country that allows freedom of expression. I own various weapons, and use them on a regular basis. I have even used them in self-defense, during a home robbery, and another time during an attempted rape. I have also used them in defense of a people who's personal freedoms were being impinged on by a sadistic dictator. While you may not agree with my right to own guns, it IS my right. You are more than welcome to get a million or so people and camp out on the white house lawn to change these rights. Just remember that it was through the use of force of arms that gave you the right to assemble peacefully.

One size fits all.



Don't bring up the idea to your local government.



How said I'm laughing? I'm very serious! ;)

One size DOES NOT fit all. A .22 is useful for small game, whereas shooting a deer (or other medium to large game) with a .22 will not guarantee a kill. On the other hand, something like a .270, 30.06, .308, etc is great for deer (or other medium to large game) as it will kill it swiftly. Shooting a squirrel, rabbit, or other small game with the same caliber will pretty much guarantee a wasted kill, as the remnants of the animal would be scattered all over the woods (little/no harvestable meat).

Why do you need a gun? :eek:

What kind of question is that? What if a bear, or a German came through your door? :p

Seriously, though, people don't really need guns. Only the Swiss should have them. :)

In the US, citizens are SUPPOSED to have the right to bear arms in order to protect ourselves from our own government in such a case as it gets too oppressive. Unfortunately, it's a bit too late & US citizens haven't even noticed that our "right to bear arms" is no longer useful because the government is allowed to have weapons they can use to attack us which we aren't allowed to have as citizens. That's what the right was attempting to prevent, but sadly it failed.

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.

What about enforcers, security officers, CPOs and responders?

But what if I want to hunt different things? I hunt small game and deer, which require rather differently sized rounds.There is no need to hunt. Just go to a supermarket near you.

First, let me apologize if what I'm saying has been said already, but I'm not about to read through 50 pages of this...

I recently changed my mind on gun control from totally agreeing that no one needs a gun to feeling that guns should be moderately monitored. I don't own a gun and have no intention of ever owning a gun unless it was for target shooting purposes.

However, just because I wouldn't want it, doesn't mean I want to deny others their choice to use a gun or not. Guns for hunting, and yes, as silly as it may seem these days, for protection against the government, are acceptable uses to me.

That being said, for self-defense against crimminals, guns are a stupid choice. Guns are intimidating, sure, but they don't have the stopping power of pepper spray, a stun gun, or even a baseball bat. Really! You shoot a guy, unless it pierces a major organ or hits the head, he still is up. Stun him or pepper-spray him, he's down for the count, no matter who he is.

My sister in law is a cop, she's maybe 5'6'' and maybe 120 lbs (before she got preggo :D) She told me that she took down a 6'2" 300+ lb guy with a singe shot of pepper spray.

Final food for thought, studies show that having a gun in your home is not as big a crime stopper as locking your doors or owning a dog!

:gundge:

There is no need to hunt. Just go to a supermarket near you.

Supermarkets (at least, the ones around here) don't carry venison, pheasant, and other "exotic" meats. So if I want something other than beef, chicken, turkey, pork, or fish, I'd have to hunt for it (or go to my sister and brother in law's house, since my brother in law hunts).

Also, hunting helps to control the population of wild animals, which may otherwise starve or cause property damage (through crop damage, motor vehicle accidents, etc).

One size fits all.
That's not even true for condoms, how could it possibly be true for firearms.

Don't bring up the idea to your local government.
Well, I don't think hunting with weapons banned it this country will ever be legal.


How said I'm laughing? I'm very serious! ;)
Serious business only here.

Better question, why I do I not need a gun? answer: there is no legit answer.

One size fits all.





Thank you for proving you know absolutely nothing about firearms except what you've seen in the movies yet think you have the capabilities to legislate them. You'ld fit in perfectly w/ most of the anti-gun groups in the US.

First, let me apologize if what I'm saying has been said already, but I'm not about to read through 50 pages of this...

I recently changed my mind on gun control from totally agreeing that no one needs a gun to feeling that guns should be moderately monitored. I don't own a gun and have no intention of ever owning a gun unless it was for target shooting purposes.

However, just because I wouldn't want it, doesn't mean I want to deny others their choice to use a gun or not. Guns for hunting, and yes, as silly as it may seem these days, for protection against the government, are acceptable uses to me.

That being said, for self-defense against crimminals, guns are a stupid choice. Guns are intimidating, sure, but they don't have the stopping power of pepper spray, a stun gun, or even a baseball bat. Really! You shoot a guy, unless it pierces a major organ or hits the head, he still is up. Stun him or pepper-spray him, he's down for the count, no matter who he is.

My sister in law is a cop, she's maybe 5'6'' and maybe 120 lbs (before she got preggo :D) She told me that she took down a 6'2" 300+ lb guy with a singe shot of pepper spray.

Final food for thought, studies show that having a gun in your home is not as big a crime stopper as locking your doors or owning a dog!

:gundge:

Thanks for the advice, but I already lock my doors, have a very big dog, and own a gun. If you think thats not enough I also own two very sharp knifes and have a very big & crazy son in law. All this is for my personal protection against people who think its ok to go into anyones home they wish to rape, rob or kill. I'm not looking for trouble, I am a very peace loving person. But that doesn't mean that my teeth will fail to come out when my life is being threatened.

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.

This is one of the worst ideas ever put forward on NSG.

This is one of the worst ideas ever put forward on NSG.

At least I have ideas. I don't see much nice postings started up by you.

At least I have ideas. I don't see much nice postings started up by you.

Are you trying to make a point here?

Why do i own firearms?

I'm a competitive shooter, that's all i am and it's all I've ever been.

For some reason or other i've got a real ability in a number of events and i do enjoy competing and, well , winning in said events.

To that end i do own a number of firearms but i've never felt even the slightest desire to shoot anything living. That said, if i ever heard someone smash through one of my windows downstairs the first thing i would do is grab the USP from the safe in my room but I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon.

Are you trying to make a point here?

Yes, Ifreann.

It's so easy to say: "This is one of the worst ideas ever put forward on NSG."

For a start, you could say which part is bad and better, propose your own idea.

Yes, Ifreann.

It's so easy to say: "This is one of the worst ideas ever put forward on NSG."

For a start, you could say which part is bad and better, propose your own idea.

Oh it's been well dissected already. Though, something nobody has mentioned yet, that I noticed: The no restrictions on what weapons government agents and the like can have. There should be restrictions on what guns they can carry too. Not the same restrictions as other citizens, but restrictions none the less.

And propose my own idea for getting rid of legally held guns? But I don't want that to happen.

Oh it's been well dissected already. Though, something nobody has mentioned yet, that I noticed: The no restrictions on what weapons government agents and the like can have. There should be restrictions on what guns they can carry too. Not the same restrictions as other citizens, but restrictions none the less.

And propose my own idea for getting rid of legally held guns? But I don't want that to happen.

I don't know. I think it would regulate it self. Depending their task, they will select the best toy. You don't arrest a small criminal with some SWAT team.

And you are not out to arrest a huge cocaine dealer - who is having bodyguards - with just a single pistol.

I don't think they will use the wrong weapons often (sure, they will, you have cowboys everywhere)

Nobody is saying you should support getting rid of guns.

I don't know. I think it would regulate it self. Depending their task, they will select the best toy. You don't arrest a small criminal with some SWAT team.

And you are not out to arrest a huge cocaine dealer - who is having bodyguards - with just a single pistol.

I don't think they will use the wrong weapons often (sure, they will, you have cowboys everywhere)
So you're basically trusting that you'll never get any cops who are unbalanced or psychotic in some way. You're just assuming that they'll all be sane responsible people and stay that way until they leave the force.

So you're basically trusting that you'll never get any cops who are unbalanced or psychotic in some way. You're just assuming that they'll all be sane responsible people and stay that way until they leave the force.


Yes indeed. Sure, it is possible that one is slipping through the net, but the cops I know are sane people.

You really don't like cops, isn't? :)

And weapon choice, is not a personal choice, I believe in team- and social control.

I don't think the 'insane' cop will be allowed to use a bazooka.

Imagine what would happen if every American has the right to have nukes...

Apples and orange space goats with gigantic orbital phase cannons.

Frankly, I think cars are a much better comparison. They're highly dangerous when used unthinkingly or maliciously, and are involved in the deaths of many Americans. While many Americans have legitimate reasons for owning them, many owners don't really need one.

So. Let's imagine what would happen if every American has the right to have a car.

Yes indeed. Sure, it is possible that one is slipping through the net, but the cops I know are sane people.
You don't know every cop.

You really don't like cops, isn't? :)
I don't know any

And weapon choice, is not a personal choice, I believe in team- and social control.

I don't think the 'insane' cop will be allowed to use a bazooka.

But you said there are no restrictions on what weapons they're allowed have. If there are no restrictions, then what's to stop them signing out some tactical gear and robbing a bank?

You don't know every cop.


No. I don't need to either.
You are not a cop after 1 day.

You'll be screened, you’ll go to police school, you're evaluated permanently.
And still, it happens that bad cops slip through.

But most cops are rather clean, are doing their job, like their job etc...


But most cops are rather clean, are doing their job, like their job etc...

I don't know any

Maybe, that's the problem.

I know a few and sometimes you can't imagine what they have to do.
They are on the border of the society we know and the lowlands.
They see, hear and smell stuff you never will experience.

I have respect for those guys.


But you said there are no restrictions on what weapons they're allowed have. If there are no restrictions, then what's to stop them signing out some tactical gear and robbing a bank?

Sure. But social controlling each other is working in any team. And it is possible that a team goes berserk, but you can't foresee everything.

No. I don't need to either.
You are not a cop after 1 day.

You'll be screened, you’ll go to police school, you're evaluated permanently.
And still, it happens that bad cops slip through.
None of these things will help when a cop snaps one day and goes on a shooting spree with a machine gun. Aren't you then one who desperately wants to reduce the number of shootings?

But most cops are rather clean, are doing their job, like their job etc...
I'd ask for a source, but I'm tired of hearing about your common sense.


Sure. But social controlling each other is working in any team. And it is possible that a team goes berserk, but you can't foresee everything.

You may not be able to predict when a cop or group of cops will snap and go beserk, or abuse their unlimited ability to use any weapon in the police arsenal, but you can take precautions against that by doing something as crazy as placing restrictions on what guns they use and when they're allowed use them.

None of these things will help when a cop snaps one day and goes on a shooting spree with a machine gun. Aren't you then one who desperately wants to reduce the number of shootings?

Ok, restrict their kind of weapons then as well.

I'd ask for a source, but I'm tired of hearing about your common sense.

Yes, you should.

Real morons, from a psychological view, can't enter the police.

The tests and screening is enough to exclude 99% of the people with a serious mental disease.

Then there's their training time. You're not a cop in 1 week. No, it will last 6 to 12 months.

And again, they'll screen and evaluate you. Sick people will be removed.

If they finally receive their badge then they are judged again once a year.

In Belgium, if they receive 2 bad yearly evaluations in 3 years, then they are fired.

Unless they committed a crime, brought themselves or others in a dangerous position by stupidity, insubordination etc...

Yes, you should.

Real morons, from a psychological view, can't enter the police.

The tests and screening is enough to exclude 99% of the people with a serious mental disease.

Then there's their training time. You're not a cop in 1 week. No, it will last 6 to 12 months.

And again, they'll screen and evaluate you. Sick people will be removed.

If they finally receive their badge then they are judged again once a year.

In Belgium, if they receive 2 bad yearly evaluations in 3 years, then they are fired.

Unless they committed a crime, brought themselves or others in a dangerous position by stupidity, insubordination etc...

So it takes 3 years to weed out someone who might be crazy? And that doesn't cover the ones who are perfectly sane, just criminals.

So it takes 3 years to weed out someone who might be crazy? And that doesn't cover the ones who are perfectly sane, just criminals.
No. Some people with some mental disorders can perform in society rather well and not all of them are 'crazy' or not fit enough for the police.

But people with by instance an antisocial personality disorder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder) will have a hard time to enter the police force.

But real retard people will have no chance at all.

The few with some disorder that would pass the net, will be caught while they are at police school.

And what's over? 1 in 100,000 that still is able to be a cop for some time...

No, I am not afraid for crazy cops.

Besides 100% (if they exist at all :p) normal people can sometimes do retard stuff as well...

Bah, enough of this tangent.
*re-directs thread back at topic*
You still haven't demonstrated that removing guns from law abiding citizens would be a good thing.

Bah, enough of this tangent.
*re-directs thread back at topic*
You still haven't demonstrated that removing guns from law abiding citizens will be a good thing.

I don't have to. But Europe is doing that for me.

We have far much less guns as in USA and I see two things:

• Criminality isn't higher as in USA
• We have fewer homicides, suicides by guns, school-shootings, gun-accidents, etc...

So there’s live evidence that it is not turning out like some spokespeople from the NRA are predicting.

The crap as:

• We are violent people! Well, Europe killed more people in history than USA
• It’s our constitution! Sure, in the bible is written once that thou shall not f*ck the slave of your neighbour.
• Our criminals are different! Sure, what’s different about them?

I don't have to.

Then this thread is a waste of bandwidth. If you're not going to back up your agruements then you'd be better off not making them at all.

Then this thread is a waste of bandwidth. If you're not going to back up your agruements then you'd be better off not making them at all.

Europe is real. No?

Europe is real. No?

Europe is different than the US, no?

Europe is different than the US, no?

What's so different then?

owning a gun or two is one thing, but having an entire collection is something totally different........:headbang:

Europe is real. No?
Still insist on playing? Very well.
I don't have to. But Europe is doing that for me.

We have far much less guns as in USA
Source?
and I see two things:

• Criminality isn't higher as in USA
Source?
• We have fewer homicides, suicides by guns, school-shootings, gun-accidents, etc...
Source?

So there’s live evidence that it is not turning out like some spokespeople from the NRA are predicting.
Source on this alleged NRA prediction about Europe?

The crap as:

• We are violent people! Well, Europe killed more people in history than USA
• It’s our constitution! Sure, in the bible is written once that thou shall not f*ck the slave of your neighbour.
• Our criminals are different! Sure, what’s different about them?

I don't get this bit at all.

What's so different then?

The criminals are different (gang crime is much more out of control in the US), the social and economic problems are different, the outdoors culture (hunting, target shooting, etc) is different, the overall culture is different, population density is different (according to wiki, Belgiums population density is 336.8 per square km, whereas places like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have population densities of 10,194.2, 3,041.2, and 4,922.9 per square km respectivly), etc.

Still insist on playing? Very well.

Source?

Source?

Source?


Source on this alleged NRA prediction about Europe?



I don't get this bit at all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=1
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_02.html
http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=620125&CFTOKEN=83466949
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf

International Homicides Rates (Death rates are per 100,000)

USA 5,70
Italy 2,25
France 1,12
UK 1,41
Germany 1,17
Belgium 1,41
Finland 3,24
Spain 0,95

Source:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html

This one is also nice to know:

RELATIONSHIP PERCENT
Male kills male 65.2%
Male kills female 22.6%
Female kills male 9.7%
Female kills female 2.4%

Source:
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#circumstance

Moreover, public health researchers decry that violent injuries with firearms affect disproportionately older children and adolescents; tragically, up to 4000 of these deaths occur in teenagers and young adults. In 2002, suicides accounted for 16,586 deaths; homicides for about 10,801 deaths; and unintentional injuries (accidental shootings) for another 776 deaths.

In some inner cities, 23 percent of students have witnessed violence in their schools and reportedly up to 12 percent of youngsters have carried a gun to school in any given academic year. With these frightening statistics, it's not surprising that many Americans believe that a greater effort should be made to enforce the 20,000 U.S. gun laws already in place and which sometimes are not fully enforced, particularly those pertaining to keeping guns away from minors, the mentally ill, and the criminal element.

Thus, the medical and public health establishments strongly support gun control measures they believe will reduce the availability of firearms and gun violence

Source:
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html

owning a gun or two is one thing, but having an entire collection is something totally different........:headbang:

How so? Are you saying you have something against people that collect firearms? My brother in law has a collection (much of which, he bought from the widow of a collector), but there's some firearms in there that I don't think have ever been fired, and probably won't if my brother in law has anything to say about it (and he does, since he is the only one with the combination to the firearms safe). My brother in law also hunts, but he already had a few firearms for that before he bought the collection (so he does shoot some of his firearms, it's just that some collectible firearms actually go down in value if they're fired).

The criminals are different (gang crime is much more out of control in the US), the social and economic problems are different, the outdoors culture (hunting, target shooting, etc) is different, the overall culture is different, population density is different (according to wiki, Belgiums population density is 336.8 per square km, whereas places like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have population densities of 10,194.2, 3,041.2, and 4,922.9 per square km respectivly), etc.


You're comparing cities with a country...

However, Brussels is having 6,324/km². Higher as LA & Chicago.

For Belgium it is 344.32/km², for USA 31/km², for Europe 134/km²

The population density in entire Europe is 4.3 times higher as in Europe - 134 people per square mile . Still, we kill each other 5 times less.

The social & economic problems are rather the same. Some areas are doing well, some are not in USA (and the same is true for Europe).

In fact, USA is doing better. The unemployment rate is lower!

I don't think that people in the cities do a lot hunting or target shooting (and so is it in Europe).

Different criminals? The only difference is, that your criminals have access to guns much easier.
And criminality is a little higher in USA as in Europe, but not 5x times more...

I don't trust the police, at all. They're dishonest and they can get away with almost anything. They're not psychopaths, but they're one of the lowest forms of human life.

Even if law enforcement was the most pious organization in the world, most people don't get enough advance notice of a murder to call the police and be saved.

Edwinasia, like I said before, gun laws in the city tend to be the strictest, especially in schools. The gun laws don't override the culture though. Gun laws are usually more lax the farther away you get from highly populated areas.

I don't trust the police, at all. They're dishonest and they can get away with almost anything. They're not psychopaths, but they're one of the lowest forms of human life.

Even if law enforcement was the most pious organization in the world, most people don't get enough advance notice of a murder to call the police and be saved.


Sad that you are living in some dictatorial regime. Where were you living?

Edwinasia, like I said before, gun laws in the city tend to be the strictest, especially in schools. The gun laws don't override the culture though. Gun laws are usually more lax the farther away you get from highly populated areas.


Look for me it's clear, cut off the source and the outcome will be less.

In Europe there are less guns around, so less are available to be retrieved one day in the hand of some criminal.

Haha. I'm a college student in Rhode Island and my family lives in Massachusetts.

I live in Providence. The former mayor of Providence is an italian who ran the city like the mob. He just recently got out of jail, and everyone here still loves him and wants him reelected, even though you can't elect someone who's been to prison. The point is, I'm surrounded by people who don't care about political corruption, and I don't live under a dictatorship.

Look for me it's clear, cut off the source and the outcome will be less.

In Europe there are less guns around, so less are available to be retrieved one day in the hand of some criminal.I typed "build a zip gun" into google and instantly got many results. Here's the first one http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

Homeless people build these things out of plumbing tubes.

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

Check out that cell phone... scary.

Haha. I'm a college student in Rhode Island and my family lives in Massachusetts.

I live in Providence. The former mayor of Providence is an italian who ran the city like the mob. He just recently got out of jail, and everyone here still loves him and wants him reelected, even though you can't elect someone who's been to prison. The point is, I'm surrounded by people who don't care about political corruption, and I don't live under a dictatorship.


Corrupt politicians are everywhere. And yes, we re-elect those bastards too.

But that doesn't make all cops bad.

Some of my best friends are cops and I am pretty sure they are clean.

I typed "build a zip gun" into google and instantly got many results. Here's the first one http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/

Homeless people build these things out of plumbing tubes.

Sure. But I think a Smith & Wesson is still a little more dangerous.

And homeless people have no internet.

Corrupt politicians are everywhere. And yes, we re-elect those bastards too.

But that doesn't make all cops bad.

Some of my best friends are cops and I am pretty sure they are clean.
I know that not all cops are corrupt. But the thing that makes me mad is that they can get away with it if they are.

For example, a cop ran a red light when my dad had a green light. She destroyed my dad's truck. Since the side of my dad's truck was smashed, there is no way that it could possibly have been my dad's fault, unless my dad had a magical truck that can drive sideways really fast into stationary cars at intersections. The cop claimed that my dad is the one that ran a red light, not her. The judge knew she was wrong, but the judge couldn't do anything about it except give us money without blaming the police for anything. I think the court records say the sun was in my dad's eye. (Not true.) This is only one incident, but it proves that it's almost impossible to punish the police for doing something wrong.

Anyone can use the internet at the library.

I know that not all cops are corrupt. But the thing that makes me mad is that they can get away with it if they are.

For example, a cop ran a red light when my dad had a green light. She destroyed my dad's truck. Since the side of my dad's truck was smashed, there is no way that it could possibly have been my dad's fault, unless my dad had a magical truck that can drive sideways really fast into stationary cars at intersections. The cop claimed that my dad is the one that ran a red light, not her. The judge knew she was wrong, but the judge couldn't do anything about it except give us money without blaming the police for anything. Officially, the sun was in my dad's eye so he was blinded. This is only one incident, but it proves that it's almost impossible to punish the police for doing something wrong.

Yes, I know. Such things happen. I had also already a bad experience. But still I know that most are good people

I hunt. I also spent most of my life living in rural Alberta, so guns were also around to deal with dangerous wildlife. Protection from humans wasn't really an issue, although I do recall my dad meeting people at the gates with his shotgun. Also, you'll sometimes get poachers on your land, which is incredibly dangerous...and they'll be armed...so.

I hunt. I also spent most of my life living in rural Alberta, so guns were also around to deal with dangerous wildlife. Protection from humans wasn't really an issue, although I do recall my dad meeting people at the gates with his shotgun. Also, you'll sometimes get poachers on your land, which is incredibly dangerous...and they'll be armed...so.

Neesika,

I don't see a problem for hunters as well.

The rifles are mostly not that interesting for criminals.
Hunters know how to shoot, know how to store a rifle.

I have an uncle who is a hunter. I never saw him doing dumb things like pretending to shoot a human...

Most people are not interested in hunting. Even the ones in the country.

Same for collectors: if they want guns, fine for me. Few people are collectors, 'cause it's expensive, time consuming, etc...

I'm talking about the rest.

They heard a rumour that a friend of a friend his grandmother her friend his uncle his niece is raped or something.

And suddenly they feel unsafe by themselve and buy total irrational a gun.

Or they see too much COPS or the regular news media. All those blacks that are doing bad things...

And again they buy guns.

And it doesn't help that some NRA is just spreading false info and play a part in keeping the people afraid...

Too much people, who don't need a gun, have a gun. And the outcome is clear.

What are they supposed to do? Tell their daughter that there's nothing they can do to prevent anyone from raping her?

There is no valid reason for any government prohibition of civilian ownership of ANY weapon.

Safety does not trump the need for the citizenry to have ability to mount an effective revolt if it becomes necessary.

Nothing does.

Ever.

What are they supposed to do? Tell their daughter that there's nothing they can do to prevent anyone from raping her?

I stand by my signature.

What are they supposed to do? Tell their daughter that there's nothing they can do to prevent anyone from raping her?

Rape doesn't happen every day, it's rather rare.

Their daughters will not be raped.

And the guns aren't stopping the rapes either, isn't?

There is no valid reason for any government prohibition of civilian ownership of ANY weapon.

Safety does not trump the need for the citizenry to have ability to mount an effective revolt if it becomes necessary.

Nothing does.

Ever.

I'm wondering how many revolts you needed, since your independency...

And even if you have a real desire to revolt, the guns will be delivered next week.

In the meantime, keep your house, street, city, gun poor.

Rape doesn't happen every day, it's rather rare.

Their daughters will not be raped.

And the guns aren't stopping the rapes either, isn't?I was taught that 1 in 4 women is sexually assaulted some time in her life, and 1 in 6 men.

Rape is one of the most underreported crimes, it happens a lot more than the records show.

I was taught that 1 in 4 women is sexually assaulted some time in her life, and 1 in 6 men.

Rape is one of the most underreported crimes, it happens a lot more than the records show.

Even if your figures are correct, those guns aren't killing rapes.

I'm pretty sure that the rape rate is about equal in Europe as in US.

Our wives don't feel unsafe all the time.

Look for me it's clear, cut off the source and the outcome will be less.

In Europe there are less guns around, so less are available to be retrieved one day in the hand of some criminal.

What's clear to you, and what's reality isn't always the same. As has been pointed out in this thread, criminals will still have their firearms (as they won't turn them in, and if they lose the one(s) they have, they can always make/smuggle in more). And how many times does it have to be pointed out to you, Europe and the US is different.

Sure. But I think a Smith & Wesson is still a little more dangerous.

And homeless people have no internet.

What is fired matters a lot more than what it's fired out of.

And I do believe that if a homeless person wanted to use the internet at a public place (such as a library), they could.

What's clear to you, and what's reality isn't always the same. As has been pointed out in this thread, criminals will still have their firearms (as they won't turn them in, and if they lose the one(s) they have, they can always make/smuggle in more). And how many times does it have to be pointed out to you, Europe and the US is different.

The guns aren't helping raped women...

USA
32 .99 rapes for every 100,000 citizen in 2002

Belgium
23.57 rapes for every 100,000 citizen in 2002

UK
22.62 rapes for every 100,000 citizen in 2002

Germany
10.44 rapes for every 100,000 citizen in 2002

Italy
4.41 rapes for every 100,000 citizen in 2002

Source:
http://www.unodc.org/pdf/crime/eighthsurvey/8sc.pdf


What's so different then between US & Europe?

You have less population density, less poverty, a better economy, etc...

But still FIVE times more homicides.

Maybe, maybe, it has to do with the availability of guns? No?

I'm wondering how many revolts you needed, since your independency...
None yet.

Which is irrelevant.

There's a first time for anything.

Preparedness is essential.

And even if you have a real desire to revolt, the guns will be delivered next week.

...Huh?

Are you seriously trying to say that if you have a deadly weapon you're no more or less likely to be raped? That can't be true.

None yet.

Which is irrelevant.

There's a first time for anything.

Preparedness is essential.



It's very relevant. Why not take protection for a falling comet?
Or maybe an explosion of the sun?

Or don't drive a car, odds are high it will kill you...

...Huh?

Yes.

Revolution -> War -> Business -> Profit can be made -> Guns will be delivered soon.

It is always working like that.

Are you seriously trying to say that if you have a deadly weapon you're no more or less likely to be raped? That can't be true.

No. It is not preventing you, that you'll be raped.

What is fired matters a lot more than what it's fired out of.

And I do believe that if a homeless person wanted to use the internet at a public place (such as a library), they could.


After the blacks, we should be afraid of homeless people using their notebook to surf wireless on the net, to check how to create a gun...

Sure! Tok Tok Toooook

Or don't drive a car, odds are high it will kill you...


Seatbelts?

Air bags?

Seatbelts?

Air bags?

You heard stories about stolen Seatbelts or Air bags?

And those thieves killed other people by using those stuff?

Or you heard about School Shooting were an Air Bag was used?

Do you have any statistics on that issue? I am very interested!

You heard stories about stolen Seatbelts or Air bags?

And those thieves killed other people by using those stuff?

Or you heard about School Shooting were an Air Bag was used?

Do you have any statistics on that issue? I am very interested!

Link (http://www.statefarm.com/about/media/backgrounder/theft.asp)

Thieves have long targeted specific car parts such as radios and wheel covers, but in recent years they've developed a black market for an increasingly prominent safety device -- the air bag. Whenever an air bag deploys in a crash, it must be replaced. A thief can steal an air bag and sell it at a low price -- say, $200 -- to an unethical repair-shop owner, who then charges the customer the standard price for a replacement bag - maybe $1,000 or more - and makes a sizable profit. The NICB® estimates 50,000 air bags valued at about $50 million are stolen each year. State Farm estimates that when all cars have air bags, theft of the devices could cost insurance companies and their customers between $127 million and $253 million a year. State Farm is working with automakers and air bag suppliers to find solutions to the theft problem.

I'm sure people have been killed by this but i'm only answering your questions because you've missed my point that your car example isn't completely accurate

Why do I need a gun?

Many reasons, not the least of which is for self-defense. Just as importantly, if the federal government ever becomes tyrannical (read: socialist) it is my intention to overthrow it, or die trying.

Why do I need a gun?

Many reasons, not the least of which is for self-defense. Just as importantly, if the federal government ever becomes tyrannical (read: socialist) it is my intention to overthrow it, or die trying.

lol

Why do I need a gun?

Many reasons, not the least of which is for self-defense. Just as importantly, if the federal government ever becomes tyrannical (read: socialist) it is my intention to overthrow it, or die trying.

So does federally funded healthcare of any sort count? Because you have that. Sounds like it's time to start shooting.

Still insist on playing? Very well.

Source?

Source?

Source?


Source on this alleged NRA prediction about Europe?



I don't get this bit at all.
Yes, please privide more sources so that you may be pwnt again, like you were with your last sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States
It's wikipedia. Enough said.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=1
You are more likely to use a gun to commit suicide if you own a gun. Doesn't mean they wouldn't try a different way. Guns are percieved as the easiest and most painless way to go. Then again, sticking your head in the oven is pretty peaceful too. Should we outlaw ovens?


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_02.html
NO mention of which crimes used guns. Irrelevant.



http://bjsdata.ojp.usdoj.gov/dataonline/Search/Crime/State/StatebyState.cfm?NoVariables=Y&CFID=620125&CFTOKEN=83466949
Error Occurred While Processing Request
Element CFID is undefined in COOKIE.
Interesing, indeed. Your best argument yet.

http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/165476.pdf
An article about the type of guns and ownership trends. Again, irrelevant.

International Homicides Rates (Death rates are per 100,000)

USA 5,70
Italy 2,25
France 1,12
UK 1,41
Germany 1,17
Belgium 1,41
Finland 3,24
Spain 0,95

Source:
http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvinco.html
OOOhhh!
The U.S. has a high gun murder rate, whereas a country like England with strict gun controls has almost no gun murders and a very low murder rate. Doesn't this show that gun control is effective in reducing murder rates? Not exactly.
Pwnt in the first sentence no less!

This one is also nice to know:

RELATIONSHIP PERCENT
Male kills male 65.2%
Male kills female 22.6%
Female kills male 9.7%
Female kills female 2.4%

Source:
http://www.benbest.com/lifeext/murder.html#circumstance
And this is homicide in general, not homicide by gun.

Moreover, public health researchers decry that violent injuries with firearms affect disproportionately older children and adolescents; tragically, up to 4000 of these deaths occur in teenagers and young adults. In 2002, suicides accounted for 16,586 deaths; homicides for about 10,801 deaths; and unintentional injuries (accidental shootings) for another 776 deaths.

In some inner cities, 23 percent of students have witnessed violence in their schools and reportedly up to 12 percent of youngsters have carried a gun to school in any given academic year. With these frightening statistics, it's not surprising that many Americans believe that a greater effort should be made to enforce the 20,000 U.S. gun laws already in place and which sometimes are not fully enforced, particularly those pertaining to keeping guns away from minors, the mentally ill, and the criminal element.

Thus, the medical and public health establishments strongly support gun control measures they believe will reduce the availability of firearms and gun violence

Source:
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html
This just keeps getting better:
Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun.
^because I know you're a fan of big text.;)

After the blacks, we should be afraid of homeless people using their notebook to surf wireless on the net, to check how to create a gun...

Sure! Tok Tok Toooook

Why do you keep bringing race into the debate? You're the only one that's doing that (that I've seen).

Also, where did you get notebook computers and wireless networking from my post? The library has computers and internet available for public use.

The crap as:

• It’s our constitution! Sure, in the bible is written once that thou shall not f*ck the slave of your neighbour.

I guess this is tough for many Europeans to get, but we take our Constitution pretty seriously in the US. The Founding Fathers put together a pretty good document enshrining the political philosophy of the United States.

The Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of certain rights (note that this list is not exhaustive, and that the Constitution does not grant these rights, it just recognizes that they are inherent rights of all human beings)

Of the rights recognized, the right to bear arms was #2 on the list- behind only freedom of speech and religion.

So, I'll take the opinions of the men who founded this nation a bit more seriously than the opinions of someone living on another continent who, frnakly, has no say on how we run our affairs.

The only way to eliminate the right to bear arms in this country would be through a Constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen.

It's very relevant. Why not take protection for a falling comet?
Or maybe an explosion of the sun?

Or don't drive a car, odds are high it will kill you...
I would, if I thought the risk was great enough to justify the expense and effort.

In the case of the possibility of tyranny, it is a sufficiently great risk.

The only way to eliminate the right to bear arms in this country would be through a Constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen.

Actually, even that would not eliminate the right, as you yourself indicate you understand.

We would still have it; it just would not be EXPLICITLY protected.

It would still be IMPLICITLY protected, of course, thanks to the Ninth Amendment.

And if, somehow, the Ninth Amendment were repealed, then it STILL wouldn't matter because we would STILL have that right, and since we would no longer even have so much as a lip service guarantee that it would not be abrogated, we would certainly be justified in revolting--because we still have those rights, and we can no longer have any certainty at all that government will not violate them.

I guess this is tough for many Europeans to get, but we take our Constitution pretty seriously in the US. The Founding Fathers put together a pretty good document enshrining the political philosophy of the United States.

The Bill of Rights recognizes the existence of certain rights (note that this list is not exhaustive, and that the Constitution does not grant these rights, it just recognizes that they are inherent rights of all human beings)

Of the rights recognized, the right to bear arms was #2 on the list- behind only freedom of speech and religion.

So, I'll take the opinions of the men who founded this nation a bit more seriously than the opinions of someone living on another continent who, frnakly, has no say on how we run our affairs.

The only way to eliminate the right to bear arms in this country would be through a Constitutional amendment, which is not going to happen.It would be more honest if they did amend the constitution. A right isn't something that you need a license for that can be taken away. They should change the constitution to admit that a gun is a privilege for people without a proven history of being dangerous.

It would be more honest if they did amend the constitution. A right isn't something that you need a license for that can be taken away. They should change the constitution to admit that a gun is a privilege for people without a proven history of being dangerous.

Certainly, that's how it works now.

But it is indeed a sacred right.

And when the government prevents certain individuals from owning weapons, it is violating their rights--and is therefore acting illegitimately.

It would be more honest if they did amend the constitution. A right isn't something that you need a license for that can be taken away. They should change the constitution to admit that a gun is a privilege for people without a proven history of being dangerous.


Great! I don't have a history of being dangerous, proven or otherwise. So following this rule of thumb you just oked the fact that I own a gun. The problem is the people of the world who use firearms & other weapons for evil. You know the ones proven to be dangerous .... remember 911?

Great! I don't have a history of being dangerous, proven or otherwise. So following this rule of thumb you just oked the fact that I own a gun. The problem is the people of the world who use firearms for evil. You know the ones proven to be dangerous .... remember 911?

Rudy Guilani? Is that you?

Great! I don't have a history of being dangerous, proven or otherwise. So following this rule of thumb you just oked the fact that I own a gun. The problem is the people of the world who use firearms & other weapons for evil. You know the ones proven to be dangerous .... remember 911?

I don't think any of those people had guns. They had box cutters, dangerous, but no firearms.

Rudy Guilani? Is that you?

Not hardly .... I'm much better looking then him.

I don't think any of those people had guns. They had box cutters, dangerous, but no firearms.

No they just flew aircraft into buildings .... nothing dangerous about that is there?

No they just flew aircraft into buildings .... nothing dangerous about that is there?

Yes, but you brought up 9/11 while talking about people who use firearms for evil. I agree, they should not be given guns, but I think they are a little beyond needing them.

I need a gun for the same reason I need a hat.

I need a gun for the same reason I need a hat.

I need a gun like a woman needs a fish with a bicycle.
I think I just mangled that cliché, but you get the idea.

I need a gun like a woman needs a fish with a bicycle.
I think I just mangled that cliché, but you get the idea.

Touche.

I don't need a hat either. Especially a hat with a womanly fish-bicycle.

Supermarkets (at least, the ones around here) don't carry venison, pheasant, and other "exotic" meats. So if I want something other than beef, chicken, turkey, pork, or fish, I'd have to hunt for it (or go to my sister and brother in law's house, since my brother in law hunts).This makes a good point. I live in Connecticut where it is illegal for stores to sell venison. The only way you can get venison is to hunt the deer yourself and take it to a professional butcher to have it cleaned and prepared.

Also, unlike most of the posters here, I do live in the middle of the woods and believe me, if there is some sort of problem out here, it will be a good 20 minutes before the police arrive. One little gun goes a long way in terms of peace of mind when you know you're on your own for 20 minutes should any shit go down.

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

:sniper: You can't pick and choose your amendments. Support your constitutional rights. :sniper:

This makes a good point. I live in Connecticut where it is illegal for stores to sell venison. The only way you can get venison is to hunt the deer yourself and take it to a professional butcher to have it cleaned and prepared.

Also, unlike most of the posters here, I do live in the middle of the woods and believe me, if there is some sort of problem out here, it will be a good 20 minutes before the police arrive. One little gun goes a long way in terms of peace of mind when you know you're on your own for 20 minutes should any shit go down.

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

:sniper: You can't pick and choose your amendments. Support your constitutional rights. :sniper:

Just out of curiosity, what part of the state do you live in? I'm in southeast CT.

Also, unlike most of the posters here, I do live in the middle of the woods and believe me, if there is some sort of problem out here, it will be a good 20 minutes before the police arrive. One little gun goes a long way in terms of peace of mind when you know you're on your own for 20 minutes should any shit go down.




Good point. I think someone out in the country is at more risk then someone living in the suburbs. The couple times I can remember being in danger involving a gun was out in the woods. A couple strange guys walked into our camp about 2am carrying a shotgun while we were around the campfire. I had a 9mm on me and I pulled it up onto my lap. Asked them what we could help them with. They looked around for a second and said "nothin we thought you were someone else." I always wondered what those two were up to. Also another incident was again out in the woods while partying when young. A girl put a handgun to a friends chest demanding his keys. She stole his truck out in the woods. Was a carjack before it was popular.

This makes a good point. I live in Connecticut where it is illegal for stores to sell venison. The only way you can get venison is to hunt the deer yourself and take it to a professional butcher to have it cleaned and prepared.

Also, unlike most of the posters here, I do live in the middle of the woods and believe me, if there is some sort of problem out here, it will be a good 20 minutes before the police arrive. One little gun goes a long way in terms of peace of mind when you know you're on your own for 20 minutes should any shit go down.

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

:sniper: You can't pick and choose your amendments. Support your constitutional rights. :sniper:

I live 30 + minuits from anywhere significant in the middle of the woods in middle minnesota ...

Rifle yes
Shotgun yes
Handgun no

But neither of them had anything to do with home protection just with the local wildlife

This makes a good point. I live in Connecticut where it is illegal for stores to sell venison. The only way you can get venison is to hunt the deer yourself and take it to a professional butcher to have it cleaned and prepared.

Also, unlike most of the posters here, I do live in the middle of the woods and believe me, if there is some sort of problem out here, it will be a good 20 minutes before the police arrive. One little gun goes a long way in terms of peace of mind when you know you're on your own for 20 minutes should any shit go down.

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

:sniper: You can't pick and choose your amendments. Support your constitutional rights. :sniper:


So you are at least 20 minutes away from any criminal as well.

I think you're safe. They'll probably not find you.

And how many times are you killed last year?

Look for me it's clear, cut off the source and the outcome will be less.
The source of weapons for criminals isn't just legally held guns. The make them and import them.

In Europe there are less guns around, so less are available to be retrieved one day in the hand of some criminal.
And less able to stop a criminal
Sure. But I think a Smith & Wesson is still a little more dangerous.
The fact that it fires bullets is more important whether or not it has a brand name.

And homeless people have no internet.
What?

After the blacks, we should be afraid of homeless people using their notebook to surf wireless on the net, to check how to create a gun...
Yes, because that information is only available on the internet. :rolleyes:

Sure! Tok Tok Toooook
Oh grow the fuck up.
You heard stories about stolen Seatbelts or Air bags?

And those thieves killed other people by using those stuff?

Or you heard about School Shooting were an Air Bag was used?

Do you have any statistics on that issue? I am very interested!
What?! His point was that seatbelts and airbags exist to make cars safer. How on earth you took that to mean that they were being used to kill people is beyond me. You are comparing apples to the space dust that makes up the crab nebula.
So you are at least 20 minutes away from any criminal as well.

I think you're safe. They'll probably not find you.
Better safe than sorry.

And how many times are you killed last year?

How many times did your house burn down last year?

The source of weapons for criminals isn't just legally held guns. The make them and import them.



You have proof, a source about the killing amounts?

And less able to stop a criminal.

Less able? We have less criminality while influencing factors aren't that good:

* More unemployment
* Higher population density
* And according your own rhetoric: the common civilians have fewer guns, so they should be more the victim of crimes...


The fact that it fires bullets is more important whether or not it has a brand name.

How many of those hand-made guns are actually used in crimes?

So a hand-made gun that in general can shoot 1 'bullet' is more dangerous as an S&W, an AK-47?


What?

No, they don't. And if they try to enter a public library, internet cafe they are threw out in general.

Yes, because that information is only available on the internet. :rolleyes:

Are they able to use the internet anyway?


Oh grow the fuck up.

I'm joking a little. But people like you are afraid of invisible criminals.


What?! His point was that seatbelts and airbags exist to make cars safer. How on earth you took that to mean that they were being used to kill people is beyond me. You are comparing apples to the space dust that makes up the crab nebula.

Indeed. Seatbelt are there for your security. Guns could secure you in particular cases.

But you can't do a robbery or a school-shooting with a seatbelt. A gun is a better tool, isn't?

Better safe than sorry.

Watch out for the Flying Spaghetti Monster !



How many times did your house burn down last year?

None and yes, I have an insurance.

While the monthly fee is almost killing me, I can't kill another with my insurance.

Here are the latest figures for gun related deaths in the UK

The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people died from gunshot wounds in the UK in each of the last 10 years. I am replying in her absence. (160004)

The table below contain numbers of firearm injury deaths with a Coroner’s verdict of accident, suicide, homicide, and undetermined intent in the UK from 1997 to 2006, the latest available year.

Number of deaths from firearm injury,( 1) United Kingdom, 1997 to 2006( 2)
Number of deaths
1997 198
1998 229
1999 207
2000 204
2001 193
2002 181
2003 187
2004 191
2005 185
2006(3) 210

(1 )The cause of death for firearm injury was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes listed below for the years 1997 to 2000 for England and Wales and Northern Ireland and from 1997 to 1999 for Scotland, and Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes listed below from 2001 onwards for England and Wales and Northern Ireland and from 2000 onwards for Scotland.
ICD-9: E922, E955.0-E955.4, E965.0-E965.4, E970, E985.0-E985.4
ICD-10: W32-W34, X72-X74, X93-X95, Y22-Y24, Y35.0.
Figures include deaths with a Coroner’s verdict of accident, suicide, homicide and undetermined intent.
(2) Figures are for deaths registered in each calendar year.
(3) Data are provisional for Northern Ireland.



Do I really need to say more as to why I like UK gun control?

No, they don't. And if they try to enter a public library, internet cafe they are threw out in general.

The public are thrown out of public libraries because they are unkempt? Interesting

Are they able to use the internet anyway?


Homeless people haven't always been homeless their whole lives

I'm leaving Ifreann to argue with you about guns in general but these quotes seemed a little strange

The public are thrown out of public libraries because they are unkempt? Interesting

No homeless people



Homeless people haven't always been homeless their whole lives

I'm leaving Ifreann to argue with you about guns in general but these quotes seemed a little strange

Indeed not necesarily.

But the internet like it is presented now, is rather young.
So, many have no clue how the basics work.
I'm rather sure that most homeless people didn't attend university or college.

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.

Well, it's very difficult to shoot somebody if you don't have a gun...

No homeless people

Homeless people are members of the public





Indeed not necesarily.

But the internet like it is presented now, is rather young.
So, many have no clue how the basics work.
I'm rather sure that most homeless people didn't attend university or college.

I've been using the Internet since I was about 11. I don't know about other people but I didn't require a degree to do so


Anyway this is a thread jack so i'm off

You have proof, a source about the killing amounts?
'According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft,'
'Studies of adult and juvenile offenders that the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services conducted in 1992 and 1993 found that 15% of the adult offenders and 19% of the juvenile offenders had stolen guns;'
Some simple math tells us that 91% of guns possessed by inmates were not acquired through theft, and 85% and 81% of adult and juvenile offenders, respectively, did not steal guns.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf


Less able? We have less criminality while influencing factors aren't that good:
My point was that less guns being available to law abiding citizens will have more effects than making it harder for criminals to get guns, it'll also mean that citizens won't be able to defend themselves with guns. Remember that you've been told many many many times that, on average, there are 2 million cases of a gun being used in self defense. If people don't have guns, they won't be able to use them in self defense. Not too hard to understand.


How many of those hand-made guns are actually used in crimes?

So a hand-made gun that in general can shoot 1 'bullet' is more dangerous as an S&W, an AK-47?
Nobody said they were more dangerous.


No, they don't. And if they try to enter a public library, internet cafe they are threw out in general.
I get that homeless people don't usually have access to the internet, I was wondering why you would bother stating that.



Are they able to use the internet anyway?
Who? Homeless people? They might be. I don't know, I'm not homeless.




I'm joking a little. But people like you are afraid of invisible criminals.
So what if I was? That doesn't support your point in any way. It's a piss poor attempt at an ad hominem.



Indeed. Seatbelt are there for your security. Guns could secure you in particular cases.

But you can't do a robbery or a school-shooting with a seatbelt. A gun is a better tool, isn't?
You can use a saw, or a hammer, or damn near anything as a weapon. Should we ban them too?



Watch out for the Flying Spaghetti Monster !
I'm a pirate, he wouldn't hurt me.




None and yes, I have an insurance.

While the monthly fee is almost killing me, I can't kill another with my insurance.

The point is that you're protecting yourself against something which may never happen. Just like a lot of people with guns.

Well, it's very difficult to shoot somebody if you don't have a gun...

And why would you shoot someone? Shooting people is a crime in my country. We call that murder

And why would you shoot someone? Shooting people is a crime in my country. We call that murder

Perhaps, for example, because they're shooting at you? And it's only murder if they die and you're found guilty.

Homeless people are members of the public


Yes, but I guess you live in a fantasy world were people all love each other.

A stinking homeless will not have much opportunities to touch a computer.


I've been using the Internet since I was about 11. I don't know about other people but I didn't require a degree to do so

If you have never used it, it will be a problem. By instance, you have to know what 'google' or another search engine is.

Anyway this is a thread jack so i'm off

Sorry, that I don't agree with you

Perhaps, for example, because they're shooting at you? And it's only murder if they die and you're found guilty.

So and the people in USA or you, are all living in a warzone, style Iraq?

So and the people in USA or you, are all living in a warzone, style Iraq?

Warzones aren't the only places where one might be shot at.

'According to the 1991 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those inmates who possessed a handgun, 9% had acquired it through theft,'
'Studies of adult and juvenile offenders that the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services conducted in 1992 and 1993 found that 15% of the adult offenders and 19% of the juvenile offenders had stolen guns;'
Some simple math tells us that 91% of guns possessed by inmates were not acquired through theft, and 85% and 81% of adult and juvenile offenders, respectively, did not steal guns.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf



My point was that less guns being available to law abiding citizens will have more effects than making it harder for criminals to get guns, it'll also mean that citizens won't be able to defend themselves with guns. Remember that you've been told many many many times that, on average, there are 2 million cases of a gun being used in self defense. If people don't have guns, they won't be able to use them in self defense. Not too hard to understand.



So are these figures are saying that 85% and 81% of adult and juvenile offenders didn't steal guns but acquired them legally?

Yes, but I guess you live in a fantasy world were people all love each other.

A stinking homeless will not have much opportunities to touch a computer.


I live in a world where the public are allowed access to libraries run by librarians who are paid by taxpayers money. They can't kick people out because they are unkempt. They can kick people out for being disruptive or breaching specific rules set in that library

So are these figures are saying that 85% and 81% of adult and juvenile offenders didn't steal guns but acquired them legally?

Well no, it says how many stole them. If they didn't steal them then they must have acquired them by some means, but not necessarily legal. Could have imported them, or bought stolen ones.

I live in a world where the public are allowed access to libraries run by librarians who are paid by taxpayers money. They can't kick people out because they are unkempt. They can kick people out for being disruptive or breaching specific rules set in that library


As long as homeless people behave, they can enter.

But sadly, many of them are drunk/stoned and making noise or problems.

And in other occasions, people just don't want them in their stores or library.

That's how it is working in Belgium.

Btw, I saw homeless people kicked out regularly in malls in NY...

I don't approve that it is happening; I think it is very sad.

Most people don't keep track of who goes into a library.

There are a lot of blogs like this http://guide2homelessness.blogspot.com/

Well no, it says how many stole them. If they didn't steal them then they must have acquired them by some means, but not necessarily legal. Could have imported them, or bought stolen ones.

I have to recall from my head, but I thought that most criminals that want a gun, just buy a stolen one.


• Buying it legally is too risky.
• Stealing by themselves? Sure they'll do, but I think you're out for money, jewellery and if you can find a gun...ok.
• Manufacturing? No, it's rather difficult, you need skills & tools, time consuming, ...
• Importing? Sure, some share will be imported. But not that much. There's no need for, I think US is containing enough producing facilities, no? So, why risking an import, surely present times....

Most people don't keep track of who goes into a library.

There are a lot of blogs like this http://guide2homelessness.blogspot.com/

In our libraries you can't access a computer without using a special ID, you have to ask for permission, etc...

Manufacturing a gun is not time consuming or expensive. I've personally never done it, but does this look time consuming to you? http://www.thegunzone.com/mos/crypto-boltgun.html

Also you're totally wrong about there not being a lot of illegal importing. The black market for weapons is huge.

Importing? Sure, some share will be imported. But not that much. There's no need for, I think US is containing enough producing facilities, no? So, why risking an import, surely present times....

If you're going to import guns then why just get a few? They'd be imported by the thousands, surely.

In our libraries you can't access a computer without using a special ID, you have to ask for permission, etc...It's like that in some libraries, but others let you walk in and use them.

And why would you shoot someone? Shooting people is a crime in my country. We call that murder

So's speeding, but people do it anyway. Regardless...

Perhaps, for example, because they're shooting at you? And it's only murder if they die and you're found guilty.

...what he said ^^^.

Well no, it says how many stole them. If they didn't steal them then they must have acquired them by some means, but not necessarily legal. Could have imported them, or bought stolen ones.

So in other words the guns used by criminals, apart the ones imported (what seizures are made by US customs - do you have figures), all started out as legally owned weapons. Yet you seem to be saying more guns should me made available so that people can buy them to protect themselves from criminals with guns that were once legal guns. Is that an accurate summation of your position?

So in other words the guns used by criminals, apart the ones imported (what seizures are made by US customs - do you have figures), all started out as legally owned weapons. Yet you seem to be saying more guns should me made available so that people can buy them to protect themselves from criminals with guns that were once legal guns. Is that an accurate summation of your position?

No, I'm saying that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would not be a good thing.

No, I'm saying that taking guns away from law abiding citizens would not be a good thing.

Even if a consequence of that is that more criminals are armed?

Even if a consequence of that is that more criminals are armed?

Having criminals and citizens armed is obviously preferable to just having criminals armed.

Having criminals and citizens armed is obviously preferable to just having criminals armed.

Well in the UK only a tiny percentage of criminals are armed - so I would say it is preferable to have neither criminals or citizens armed rather than both being armed.

Well in the UK only a tiny percentage of criminals are armed - so I would say it is preferable to have neither criminals or citizens armed rather than both being armed.

Of course.

Well in the UK only a tiny percentage of criminals are armed - so I would say it is preferable to have neither criminals or citizens armed rather than both being armed.

It's the same for Belgium.

I think it's cause several reasons:

* Criminals are in fewer need to use a gun, cause their victims don't have one as well.
* The illegal market is smaller

What you both don't seem to get is that even if the US were to outlaw guns, criminals would *gasp* BREAK THE LAW and import them.

So tell me: Where is the logic behind outlawing guns? *looks out the window* Oh, right. I just threw it out.

What you both don't seem to get is that even if the US were to outlaw guns, criminals would *gasp* BREAK THE LAW and import them.

So tell me: Where is the logic behind outlawing guns? *looks out the window* Oh, right. I just threw it out.

*Just* importing isn't that easy.

And why should an average burglar use a gun if he knows that most people do not have one as well?

In the US, smuggling's a lot easier than you think. Any criminal who wanted a gun would easily be able to get one. It would be like Prohibition.

And why would the criminals not use guns? I know I would if I were to rob a place. Guns give criminals a physical advantage over their victims and make resistance much less possible.

If more people were to have guns, the criminals would lose their advantage and crime rates would go down.

*Just* importing isn't that easy.

Which is why there are no illegal drugs in the country. Right?

And why should an average burglar use a gun if he knows that most people do not have one as well?

So we're talking about the "average burglar"? What about the one's that aren't "average"?

Let's see:

Street Cred
vicious streak
wants to scare people
thinks it's cool
wants to ensure he's more powerful than anyone there
etc.

In the US, smuggling's a lot easier than you think. Any criminal who wanted a gun would easily be able to get one. It would be like Prohibition.

And why would the criminals not use guns? I know I would if I were to rob a place. Guns give criminals a physical advantage over their victims and make resistance much less possible.

If more people were to have guns, the criminals would lose their advantage and crime rates would go down.


But why o why aren't European criminals not following that path?

And we do have criminality, including heavy criminality.
And we do have shootings and robberies.

But still, we have less criminality as in US.
And for me US isn't having a high crime rate as well. It's rather safe.

But why o why aren't European criminals not following that path?

And we do have criminality, including heavy criminality.
And we do have shootings and robberies.

But still, we have less criminality as in US.
And for me US isn't having a high crime rate as well. It's rather safe.

You keep saying the US is safe, apparently based on the fact that when you were there you weren't the victim of crime.

Which is why there are no illegal drugs in the country. Right?

And what would happen if your local K-Mart was selling cocaine legallly...





So we're talking about the "average burglar"? What about the one's that aren't "average"?

Let's see:

Street Cred
vicious streak
wants to scare people
thinks it's cool
wants to ensure he's more powerful than anyone there
etc.

Sure, it will not solve criminality. In Europe we have criminals as well. But it is not harder as in USA.

I dont have time to read all of the crap you have written on here, everyone dosent NEED a gun, but I would rather get caught WITH mine than get caught WITHOUT IT. It should be a peoples right to be armed because if weapons are illegal than people will be ignorant to them and the saftey that needs to be used with them. If guns are illegal then the only people who have them are cops and criminals and in chicago that is a VERY grey line...

And what would happen if your local K-Mart was selling cocaine legallly...

The illegal trade in it would go down ,crime would be reduced, and a new source of tax revenue would be introduced.






Sure, it will not solve criminality. In Europe we have criminals as well. But it is not harder as in USA.

And that has what to do w/ my comment? As has been pointed out numerous times, several Euro countries have high ownership levels and low crime. It has nothing to do w/ firearms, it's the type of criminal culture.

I dont have time to read all of the crap you have written on here, everyone dosent NEED a gun, but I would rather get caught WITH mine than get caught WITHOUT IT. It should be a peoples right to be armed because if weapons are illegal than people will be ignorant to them and the saftey that needs to be used with them. If guns are illegal then the only people who have them are cops and criminals and in chicago that is a VERY grey line...

See, this is why I personally chose to live in a country where the police don't have guns.

See, this is why I personally chose to live in a country where the police don't have guns.

I've heard they have shotguns in their cars, though I don't know if it's true. I do know they want tasers and pepperspray.

And that has what to do w/ my comment? As has been pointed out numerous times, several Euro countries have high ownership levels and low crime. It has nothing to do w/ firearms, it's the type of criminal culture.

In case you're refering to Switzerland with that comment (the only country with gun levels even approaching US levels), the claim that they have a low gun crime rate is nothing but a myth (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece)

I've heard they have shotguns in their cars, though I don't know if it's true. I do know they want tasers and pepperspray.

I'd support the pepper spray, but I'm not so sure about tasers.

I like the feeling of safety here, coming from Germany where people shot by the police by accident make the news more often than I'd like...

In case you're refering to Switzerland with that comment (the only country with gun levels even approaching US levels), the claim that they have a low gun crime rate is nothing but a myth (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece)


Ah yes, anecdotal evidence from the media. The murder rate of Switzerland in comparable to the rest of Western Europe. It's not the only country BTW.

I'd support the pepper spray, but I'm not so sure about tasers.

I like the feeling of safety here, coming from Germany where people shot by the police by accident make the news more often than I'd like...

I don't think the gardai could shoot someone by accident if they tried to :p

Ah yes, anecdotal evidence from the media. The murder rate of Switzerland in comparable to the rest of Western Europe. It's not the only country BTW.

The numbers and statistics are anectodes? :eek:

I don't think the gardai could shoot someone by accident if they tried to :p

*lol
Well, I don't want to see them trying, really ;)

The numbers and statistics are anectodes? :eek:

The only "numbers" they give are specially selected ones from an anti-gun organization (IANSA) to make it seem crime is higher than it really is. Notice they have to limit it to "guns" and not crime overall? They use anecdotes to scare people. Once again, the murder rate in Switzerland is comparable to the rest of Western Europe.

*lol
Well, I don't want to see them trying, really ;)

Indeed. Though I'd be more worried if they were trying to shoot the guy beside me :p

Slagging the gardai is fun :)

The only "numbers" they give are specially selected ones from an anti-gun organization (IANSA) to make it seem crime is higher than it really is. Notice they have to limit it to "guns" and not crime overall? They use anecdotes to scare people. Once again, the murder rate in Switzerland is comparable to the rest of Western Europe.

This suggests that using guns in a criminal way is cultural - essentially the Swiss are much more responsible gun owners than Americans?

This suggests that using guns in a criminal way is cultural - essentially the Swiss are much more responsible gun owners than Americans?


No, it suggests the US has a more violent criminal sub-culture. Otherwise you'ld see more of the 65-80 million legal firearm owners in the US committing crimes w/ them. Between 75 and 90% of crimes are recidivist.

In case you're refering to Switzerland with that comment (the only country with gun levels even approaching US levels), the claim that they have a low gun crime rate is nothing but a myth (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece)

But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Nice link...

The only "numbers" they give are specially selected ones from an anti-gun organization (IANSA) to make it seem crime is higher than it really is. Notice they have to limit it to "guns" and not crime overall? They use anecdotes to scare people. Once again, the murder rate in Switzerland is comparable to the rest of Western Europe.

I was under the impression we were talking about guns here, not crime overall?
And comparing the overall gun-murders in Switzerland with the overall gun-murders in England and Wales over the same period of time seems to me to draw a valid comparison, or am I wrong there?

And how many times are you killed last year?

I'd like to note for everyone on this thread that you have repeatedly failed or refused to address the fact that 2 million people every year in the US use a firearm to protect themselves from crime.

That is 2 million murders, rapes, assaults, robberies and kidnappings that were prevented by the legal use of firearms.

Are you ever going to respond to this point, or are you just going to keep ignoring facts that you don't like?

Here is my opinion on the matter. I am usually considered slightly right of center, so keep that in mind.

It is not so much that we need guns, but the fact that our constitution protects our right to own guns.

The counter argument is that it is outdated, that the 2nd ammendment is irrelevant and we no longer need it. Thus it should be removed, and guns banned.

Why is it outdated? Because you say so? Well I say the 1st ammendment is outdated. Should we scratch that as well?

There is a way to remove the 2nd ammendment, and that is to pass another ammendment canceling it. Why has this not been done? Because a substantial 2/3 majority is needed to do so. This is a constitutional democracy, and if you want guns banned, an ammendment must be passed. Just because a large minority, or equality want guns banned does not mean that they will be.

We have a legislative and constitutional process here, and most of us hold it more dear than anything else. I support gun rights because the constitution does... now do I believe there should be limits? Yes. Banning them? Unconstitutional as tyranny.

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

Oh, and the, "I've never met a robber argument." I suspect you've never had AIDS either. Does that mean we should all stop wearing condoms?

I've heard they have shotguns in their cars, though I don't know if it's true. I do know they want tasers and pepperspray.

They do in some places. Where I live the police only have pistols, but the only reason a policeman would ever have to draw his weapon here is to finish off a deer someone hit with their car. In Detroit the police have shotguns or M16s in their car. Of course, Detroit is a rather different animal than my quiet little northern Michigan town.

But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Nice link...

And the fact that the actual murder rate of Switzerland is lower than any of them means.....

You know, that's according to INTERPOL, not IANSA.

I was under the impression we were talking about guns here, not crime overall?
And comparing the overall gun-murders in Switzerland with the overall gun-murders in England and Wales over the same period of time seems to me to draw a valid comparison, or am I wrong there?

If you want to limit the discussion to talking points, sure, go ahead. Guns are a factor in crime. The fact that crime/murder rates are higher in some countries w/ lower ownership levels means that it's not a causality factor. I can point to Mexico, South Africa, Jamaica, and Russia w/ very low ownership levels and much higher crime rates, including gun crime.

But the price of eternal vigilance is frequent funerals: in 2005, 48 people were murdered by gunfire in Switzerland - about the same number as in England and Wales, which have a population seven times as large. According to the International Action Network on Small Arms, an anti-gun organisation based in the UK, 6.2 people died of bullet wounds in Switzerland in 2005 per 100,000 of population, second only to the US figure of 9.42, and more than double the rate of Germany and Italy.

Nice link...

Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.

Moreover, the actual U.S. health care costs of treating gunshot wounds is approximately $1.5 billion, which is less than 0.2 percent of the U.S. annual health care expenditures. The $20-$40 billion figure so frequently cited in the medical literature, has been found to be deliberate and exaggerated estimate of lifetime productivity lost, where every victim of crime is assumed that had not his life ended untimely he would have become a wealthy successful citizen. Reality points otherwise: Many "victims" are criminal elements who have been killed in the act of perpetrating serious crimes either by the police or by law-abiding citizens acting in self-defense.
http://www.haciendapub.com/edcor12.html
From your own source.

I was under the impression we were talking about guns here, not crime overall?
And comparing the overall gun-murders in Switzerland with the overall gun-murders in England and Wales over the same period of time seems to me to draw a valid comparison, or am I wrong there?

If your logic is that guns kill people so we should make them illegal that way guns won't kill people. Then you aren't wrong as far as logic.

The problem with that is that people still kill each other. You logic is similar to this. DHMO kills many times more people each year in countries that allow its use than in countries that don't. We should ban DHMO!

http://www.dhmo.org/

Here's my take on guns, and I know this sentiment is very similar with a lot of people I know.

I own three guns, two rifles and a shotgun. Going to the range to shoot, is a hobby. Plain and simple. Shooting trap/skeet/clay pigeons is a lot of fun, and a great way to spend the day outside. I also use it to hunt. The US has a lot of undeveloped land, unlike Europe. This is a source of food for a lot of low-income people in the US. I myself, only hunt Duck about once a year or so, and it provides a damn tasty, non-hormone-fed, natural-as-they-come meal.

There is a feeling of safety that comes from owning my guns. But it isn't one from mugging, or robbery. If someone came into my house, my guns aren't even an option to repel that person, they can take any of my material possessions that they want. But the US is a crazy place. If the sh** hit the fan, it's nice to know that I have a way to provide another source of food for my family, and to protect ourselves. There is also the age old quote "the best defense against tyranny is a well-armed populace". I subscribe to that philosophy.

But of course, I cannot leave out the all important reason: Zombies. :)

As a side note, I think handguns should be banned. They are made, designed, and operated to kill people in a pinch.

As a side note, I think handguns should be banned. They are made, designed, and operated to kill people in a pinch.

Then why do the police have them?

Shall I requote myself?

"to kill people in a pinch"

As a side note, I think handguns should be banned. They are made, designed, and operated to kill people in a pinch.

Not always. Bow hunters carry handguns. If an animal charges them, a bow isn't going to help much. What should bow hunters do? Besides, as proven by the OP's own source, guns save lives. 25-75 people are saved by guns for every life lost.

Shall I requote myself?

"to kill people in a pinch"
:rolleyes:

As a side note, I think handguns should be banned. They are made, designed, and operated to kill people in a pinch.

You'd be wrong then, as there are target pistols and hunting pistols, as well as regular pistols.

Here are some examples of target pistols.

http://www.highstandard.com/guns.html

http://www.nealjguns.com/ss_store/UsedTgtPistol.html

http://www.stiguns.com/guns/TruBor/images/Trubor06_800w.jpg

http://www.stiguns.com/guns/GrandMaster/images/GrandMasterBlueMain06_800w.jpg

Here's some examples of hunting pistols.

http://www.eabco.com/bfus01.html

http://www.biggamehunt.net/sections/Alaska/Handgun_Hunting_the_Alaskan_Brown_Bear_02050401.html

http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/proHunterPistols.php

http://www.tcarms.com/firearms/g2ContenderPistols.php

Why not use a rifle though? What (aside from target shooting) will you lose by having handguns banned? Why couldn't a bow hunter carry a nice and compact Kalishnikov?

Why not use a rifle though? What (aside from target shooting) will you lose by having handguns banned? Why couldn't a bow hunter carry a nice and compact Kalishnikov?

Handgun hunting is considered more challenging (whether due to the lower muzzle velocities, decreased sight radius, decreased range, etc I don't know) than rifle or shotgun hunting. And some states have laws against carrying a firearm with more than a few cartridges in it (in CT, a hunter cannot have any more than 3 cartridges in his firearm at a time, including the one in the chamber). Some states (like CT) also have laws against semi-auto firearms being used for other than small game. Both would prevent the hunter from carrying something like a compact Kalishnikov.

Why not use a rifle though? What (aside from target shooting) will you lose by having handguns banned? Why couldn't a bow hunter carry a nice and compact Kalishnikov?

Go bow hunting and see how well that works.

So the fact that for every life lost from a gun 25-75 are saved is apparently irrelevant to you. I suppose the fact that homicides rose 200% in DC when they banned handguns means nothing too.

It means nothing to me when it's a random fact spouted off on a message board. Give me your source.

Just out of curiosity, what part of the state do you live in? I'm in southeast CT.
Salem. In the middle of the woods near the border with East Haddam.

So you are at least 20 minutes away from any criminal as well.

I think you're safe. They'll probably not find you.

And how many times are you killed last year?
You would think so except that we have had break-ins in the area specifically because some crooks have figured out how far all of us are from help. Also we have the problem of some of the more crazy types hunting in the area. Anyone who knows lots of hunters knows what I'm talking about. That one guy who is really into it and just a little bit nuts? Yea, we get some of them around here.

It means nothing to me when it's a random fact spouted off on a message board. Give me your source.

Since you can't even be bothered to read even two posts above your own allow me to link you to it: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13166237&postcount=907

Do you need me to link you to the other post as well?

Unarmed peoples are subjects at best; slaves at worst.

Only armed people are free citizens.

All political power derives from the People.

The choice is yours.

Since Im guessing the answer is "yes," here's the rest.
http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp
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)
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)

In case you're refering to Switzerland with that comment (the only country with gun levels even approaching US levels), the claim that they have a low gun crime rate is nothing but a myth (http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2499298.ece)

We should be looking at murders per capita rather then the type of weapon used. I could kill someone just as easy with a knife.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

The US is ranked #24, Switzerland is not even ranked in this list that I could see.

What happens if you get eaten by a bear because you didn't have your gun?

http://www.collegehumor.com/picture:1703063

warning for dead animals and mild gore/ injured human

What happens if you get eaten by a bear because you didn't have your gun?


The same thing that happens to people who revive posts 2 months dead.

Hey I've been busy. I have to catch up some time don't I?

I'm wondering why someone needs a gun.
To defend.

How long was this thread dead before some preist rez'd it? Surely it could have gone to the Spirit Healer or found its body by now. Phoenix, was it even in your party? I for one hate being buffed by someone outside my party.

To defend myself. Dur.

Also, guns are quite useful as a criminal deterant. If a guy looking to rob you does not know whether or not you have a gun with you(or knows you have one) he might not try to rob you.