NationStates Jolt Archive

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....
Yep. When you criminalise something, people who have it are criminals. Duh.

EDIT: My thread.

In Soviet Russia, should guns allow you?

In before the flame war.

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

That would be places like Ireland and the UK then, right?
They seem to be doing ok, crime statistics wise...

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

Guns don't kill people, monkeys with guns kill people;)

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

Stop making them, and then stop making bullets for them, and then turn all the tanks into plowshears, and then lick a toad la la la la!:D

Allow law-abiding citizens to own guns, but use sensible restrictions, such as waiting periods and background checks.

Stop making them, and then stop making bullets for them, and then turn all the tanks into plowshears, and then lick a toad la la la la!:D

Chris Rock said it nicely... just make bullets more expensive. If every bullet cost $ 5000, people would think before shooting ;)

I would have guns for military/police forces... for civilians, dunno yet

*owns multiple firearms*

*has not shot anyone*

Chris Rock said it nicely... just make bullets more expensive. If every bullet cost $ 5000, people would think before shooting ;)

Of course, you'd have target shooters and plinkers rather upset.

To be honest, I don't think guns come under "reasonable force" in defending your home, and I don't think that many people would be upset by their being banned except perhaps for farmers. I say this as a young man with a shotgun permit and a firearms license. Get another hobby, it's not the end of the world.

Of course, you'd have target shooters and plinkers rather upset.

Anything that upsets plinkers must be good. What is a plinker?

Chris Rock said it nicely... just make bullets more expensive. If every bullet cost $ 5000, people would think before shooting ;)

I remember that, something along the lines of, "now if a bullet cost $2000 dollars and you shot somebody the guy would say, "Hey! gimmie my bullet back you @@@[''" Imagine what hospitals would be like "hey i found a bullet!" "get him!".lol

Yes we should allow gunss.

To be honest, I don't think guns come under "reasonable force" in defending your home, and I don't think that many people would be upset by their being banned except perhaps for farmers. I say this as a young man with a shotgun permit and a firearms license. Get another hobby, it's not the end of the world.

Yeah I agree.

Anything that upsets plinkers must be good. What is a plinker?

y'know when you have to tiddle that last wink? Well thats the plinker.

Anything that upsets plinkers must be good. What is a plinker?

A plinker is someone who goes shooting to shoot. You know, a hobbyist. Contrast to Target shooters.

EDIT: Although I think it may be an American term, as it's much easier for the average juan to buy a longarm here.

The guns themselves aren't really the problem. Gun crime is merely a symptom of larger social and economic problems. If we were to work on these, we would see a decrease in crime. Guns are only a convenient scapegoat for people who want easy solutions to difficult problems.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Have you ever seen a gun levitate on it's own, float to the street and fire on it's own?:p
But seeriously, criminals always find another way.

In a society that is already heavily armed, banning guns is a bad idea. In a society that is not, mass legalisation is also a bad idea.

In the UK, I'd support slowly removing the restrictions, to help get people accustomed to the idea. In the US, banning them is stupid, and in the UK, legalising is stupid.

Of course, any sort of legalisation in the UK will probably be after the anarchist revolution, and I have my hands tied working on that.

....anarchist revolution....


Heh good luck with that, isn't organising Anarchists akin to hearding cats?

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Have you ever seen a gun levitate on it's own, float to the street and fire on it's own?:p
But seeriously, criminals always find another way.

NOBODY said guns kill people.

:sniper: yes we should!

Suggestions? That you should seriously consider trying to come up with your own arguments rather than throwing out tired catch phrases without a hint of substance behind them

Sorry for trying to start a discussion, your highness...

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.


"guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as nonsensical and moronic as saying "jumping off the empire state building doesn't kill people, it's the pavement outside the empire state building that kills people"

But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

Suggestions? That you should seriously consider trying to come up with your own arguments rather than throwing out tired catch phrases without a hint of substance behind them

Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Have you ever seen a gun levitate on it's own, float to the street and fire on it's own?:p
But seeriously, criminals always find another way.

Yeah, but a bank robber with a bow and arrow isn't nearly as intimidating.

The guns themselves aren't really the problem. Gun crime is merely a symptom of larger social and economic problems. If we were to work on these, we would see a decrease in crime. Guns are only a convenient scapegoat for people who want easy solutions to difficult problems.

Exactly

"guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as nonsensical and moronic as saying "jumping off the empire state building doesn't kill people, it's the pavement outside the empire state building that kills people"

Or possibly the fall itself, you could die of fright on the way down ;)

and you failed, really. If you want to start a discussion, be thought provoking, be innovative, be capable of demonstrating at least a shred of independant intellect and sophistication, show us that you're worth engaging in and spending our time discussing the topic with you.

Repeating tired old catch phrases that every one of us has heard a million times, without adding a shred of your own input, creativity, or intellect isn't thought provoking and it isn't innovative.

Not only have you not told us anything we don't already know, but you leave us with none of your own words or arguments to discuss or argue with, but just a tired and old cliche

And yet people responded and a dicussion started, untill u came along and ruined it for everyone.:)

Sorry for trying to start a discussion, your highness...

and you failed, really. If you want to start a discussion, be thought provoking, be innovative, be capable of demonstrating at least a shred of independant intellect and sophistication, show us that you're worth engaging in and spending our time discussing the topic with you.

Repeating tired old catch phrases that every one of us has heard a million times, without adding a shred of your own input, creativity, or intellect isn't thought provoking and it isn't innovative.

Not only have you not told us anything we don't already know, but you leave us with none of your own words or arguments to discuss or argue with, but just a tired and old cliche

The guns themselves aren't really the problem. Gun crime is merely a symptom of larger social and economic problems. If we were to work on these, we would see a decrease in crime. Guns are only a convenient scapegoat for people who want easy solutions to difficult problems.

THANK YOU!!!!!



But anyway, guns dont kill people, I DO! AHAHA!

People responded because they were able to bring their own analysis and understanding to the situation. The fact that other people put the time to actually form cohesive arguments might save your thread does not in any way redeam you from posting a thread entirely bereft of any independant thought or understanding.

So I didn't really fail in starting a discussion did I?

And yet people responded and a dicussion started, untill u came along and ruined it for everyone.:)

People responded because they were able to bring their own analysis and understanding to the situation. The fact that other people put the time to actually form cohesive arguments might save your thread does not in any way redeam you from posting a thread entirely bereft of any independant thought or understanding.

you did yes. Thankfully for you, there were people who did your job for you and kicked off the thread with some actual intelligent discourse, and not tired cliches

What's wrong with clichés or other peoples arguments? They are as good to start a discussion as your own arguments.

So I didn't really fail in starting a discussion did I?

you did yes. Thankfully for you, there were people who did your job for you and kicked off the thread with some actual intelligent discourse, and not tired cliches

"guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as nonsensical and moronic as saying "jumping off the empire state building doesn't kill people, it's the pavement outside the empire state building that kills people"

Well, the fall isn't fatal, but the sudden stop sure is.

And guns don't kill people. It's the bullets that do the killing. Nobody pistol whips anyone to death, so I don't know where this "guns kill people" bull comes from. It's like saying knife handles cut meat or cockpits make planes fly.

I do not ask for your or anyone else their respect.
And I still do not see what is wrong with clichés to start a discussion. Actually most discussions are started with quotes or clichés.

What's wrong with clichés or other peoples arguments? They are as good to start a discussion as your own arguments.

Mainly that they're one line snippets bereft of actual intelligence, proving nothing, signifying nothing, are easily defeated, and demonstrate a complete unwillingness or lack of capability on your part to come up with your own arguments.

If you are unwilling or incapable of actually creating your own arguments, or at very least trying to flesh them out, and instead rely entirely on a catch phrase, it demonstrates a complete disrespect for your reader, and calls into question why anyone should bother reading your post or responding to someone who, again, has demonstrated that he is either unable or unwilling to put forth any actual thought on the matter. I don't want "other people's arguments", and if you can't be bothered or are unable to come up with your own, it makes conversing with you a dubious prospect at best, and a tremendous waste of time at worst

If you don't respect your reader enough to put in a moment's worth of energy into your post, why should we respect you?

But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

It might be the case that if guns are outlawed that only outlaws will have guns, but incidents like Hungerford and Dunlbaine showed that in Britain at least even without guns being criminalised only three groups of people actually did have guns.

Firstly there were the criminals, who as you say are never going to be stopped entirely by even the most stringent gun controls.

Secondly you had the nutters, like Michael Ryan, who would pass all the checks for getting a gun but would one day snap and try to kill dozens of people.

Thirdly you had a statistically insignificant number who kept guns for sport or farm work.

The everyday sane, law abiding individuals didn't want anything to do with guns.

And it wasn't the criminals the laws were put in place to stop, it was the nutty second element, who were the ones causing all the big profile killings and who would be as legally entitled to guns as anyone else.

Then there is, I fear, no helping you at this point. Perhaps if you manage to get out of highschool and enter a real educational enviornment with real teachers.

Not those guys who tell me to look up quotes and study and/or critisize them?

*owns multiple firearms*

*has not shot anyone*

That's not true! Everyone knows that all people that own... or have ever considered owning any weapo at all ever must be an evil murderer who only thinks about gun-related homocide.

[/sarcasm]

I do not yet own guns, however I plan on buying a rifle for hunting here in a few months.

I also live in MN, and am seriously EDIT: "considering" /EDIT getting a CCW permit. I have similarly not shot anyone, nor do I plan on shooting any people... it might happen, we'll see, but as yet I have no plan to, and I certainly wouldn't engage in criminal activity with my gun.

People who legally own guns are far less likely to engage in illegal activity with their guns....

I do not ask for your or anyone else their respect.

Yes you do. When you post a topic on a discussion forum you are asking us to respect you and your opinion enough to take our time out of our days lives and work to discuss it with you. Not to agree with it, not to support it, but to discuss it. You are asking us to respect you enough to find you worthy of our time.

And I still do not see what is wrong with clichés to start a discussion.

Then there is, I fear, no helping you at this point. Perhaps if you manage to get out of highschool and enter a real educational enviornment with real teachers.

The everyday sane, law abiding individuals didn't want anything to do with guns.

Can you cite some form of medical evidence to suggest that all sane people in England don't want to own guns? Or that only insane people desire to possess guns?

I feel that I am quite sane (now, I'm not in England, but I feel that it is nonetheless relevant), I don't commit violent crimes, and to my knowledge I don't repress memories or emotions... I desire to (legally) own a firearm or two.

I find you conclusion not factually supported, and therefor moot.

I desire to (legally) own a firearm or two.

:eek: you want to own guns?

*runs and hides from Der Teutoniker*

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

Killing people who are not a threat is illegal whether it is with a gun or any other weapon. Going a step beyond that to make guns illegal is nonsensical.

Can you cite some form of medical evidence to suggest that all sane people in England don't want to own guns? Or that only insane people desire to possess guns?

I feel that I am quite sane (now, I'm not in England, but I feel that it is nonetheless relevant), I don't commit violent crimes, and to my knowledge I don't repress memories or emotions... I desire to (legally) own a firearm or two.

I find you conclusion not factually supported, and therefor moot.

I didn't say all sane people did I? People who wanted to shoot guns for sport or to keep dogs away from their sheep etc. had guns. The point is that the average everyday Briton was in the category of "not wanting guns", whereas there was a group of the population who wanted guns, not for any practical purpose but for the simple reason that they were nutters. Going back to the Hungerford example, how many of the everyday people there had guns, or wanted anything to do with them?

Heh good luck with that, isn't organising Anarchists akin to hearding cats?

Well yes, it is. Fortunately, most anarchists are willing to get behind an idea and do something for it. Therefore, all that an anarchist revolution really needs is a cause, somebody to advocate it, and enough anarchists willing to step in and help.

But we're sidetracking here.

Yes you do. When you post a topic on a discussion forum you are asking us to respect you and your opinion enough to take our time out of our days lives and work to discuss it with you. Not to agree with it, not to support it, but to discuss it. You are asking us to respect you enough to find you worthy of our time.



Then there is, I fear, no helping you at this point. Perhaps if you manage to get out of highschool and enter a real educational enviornment with real teachers.

Jeeze, Neo... lay off, you're way more annoying right now than the cliche used to start this thread.

Can you cite some form of medical evidence to suggest that all sane people in England don't want to own guns? Or that only insane people desire to possess guns?

I feel that I am quite sane (now, I'm not in England, but I feel that it is nonetheless relevant), I don't commit violent crimes, and to my knowledge I don't repress memories or emotions... I desire to (legally) own a firearm or two.

I find you conclusion not factually supported, and therefor moot.

Well, if you assume that the vast majority of Brits are within the range of what would be considered safe, and you add the fact that this vast majority does not own any guns, then it's pretty fair to conclude that sane Brits don't want to own guns, isn't it?

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

Plague rats. It's the only sensible solution.

And yet people responded and a dicussion started, untill u came along and ruined it for everyone.:)

People responded like they always do to certain topics. Whether or not a meaninful discussion ensues (which it wasn't) is another story entirely.

yes we should allow guns

I believe guns are for shooting, and you have to shoot.

Legalize guns.

Why is someone asking "Should we allow guns?"

They should be asking "Should we outlaw guns?"

A regulation is a change to the natural state of human coexistence. It must be argued for, not against.

yes we should allow guns

yes i agree

If we ban guns what am I supposed to do to asshole tailgaters?

yes we should allow guns
this makes too much sense

If we ban guns what am I supposed to do to asshole tailgaters?

What is it with you blacks and road rage?

What is it with you blacks and road rage?

I don't start it, I just end it. Fuck them for driving on my ass. Guns are a great deterrant. Usually I just have to wave it around. Saves ammo.

I don't start it, I just end it. Fuck them for driving on my ass. Guns are a great deterrant. Usually I just have to wave it around. Saves ammo.

I bet you got that idea from some colored musician.

Hm?

Yes.

However, nuns are a far greater threat. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9UpDw8_vi0)

Allowing guns is the only sensible option.

Allowing guns is the only sensible option.

I must say that I am in complete agreement.

I don't start it, I just end it. Fuck them for driving on my ass. Guns are a great deterrant. Usually I just have to wave it around. Saves ammo.

Snafturi est teh Negroid?

Colour (lulz) me shocked. And blue. I like blue. But what color is shocked?

I must say that I am in complete agreement.

aye

aye

Yeah I agree.

Yes.

However, nuns are a far greater threat. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9UpDw8_vi0)

You're right, I propose we outlaw nuns.

Allowing guns is the only sensible option.

I agree. Just make sure you ban the bullets, otherwise the world will be a very nasty place.

I bet you got that idea from some colored musician.

Hm?

Did not.

Did not.

Oh.

It's just intuitive? Surprising.

Snafturi est teh Negroid?

Colour (lulz) me shocked. And blue. I like blue. But what color is shocked?

You don't look at the photo thread at the other forum much, do you.

A gun isn't very scary if it isnt' loaded.

Your point being?

Oh.

It's just intuitive? Surprising.

It's the only rational thing to do really.

I agree. Just make sure you ban the bullets, otherwise the world will be a very nasty place.

A gun isn't very scary if it isnt' loaded.

Yes, guns should be allowed.

Edit: And so should bullets.

You don't look at the photo thread at the other forum much, do you.

What other forum?

What other forum?

Gated community. -_-

I agree. Just make sure you ban the bullets, otherwise the world will be a very nasty place.

Oh, or just outlaw guns right now and allow them only with a permit. But! To get the permit, they have to show up with the gun. Therefore, breaking the law by owning a gun without a permit! Put them all in jail that way.

*glares at Snaft*

Gated community. -_-

Indeed.

Your point being?

More actual murders have to happen instead of the threat of murder. You wave a gun in someone's face and they shut up. You wave a bat and some people still want to test you. The clean up is messier without a gun too. With a gun, all you have to do is tear up a few strip s of carpet and bury that with the body. You bludgeon someone, that's a full carpet and pad replacement. Sometimes that stuff sinks into the wood. It's an all night job.

Oh, or just outlaw guns right now and allow them only with a permit. But! To get the permit, they have to show up with the gun. Therefore, breaking the law by owning a gun without a permit! Put them all in jail that way.

*glares at Snaft*

You dont' need permits. You need mandatory gun ownership. Shopping woudl become a competitive sport.

Chris Rock said it nicely... just make bullets more expensive. If every bullet cost $ 5000, people would think before shooting ;)

Except, as stated many times before when that Chris Rock joke gets mentioned, making ammunition isn't exactly rocket science. Many people do it every day. They even make up their own calibers sometimes, to experiment.

*owns multiple firearms*

*has not shot anyone*

+1, except I only own 1 firearm (so far).

Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my firearm.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as nonsensical and moronic as saying "jumping off the empire state building doesn't kill people, it's the pavement outside the empire state building that kills people"

Actually, it's the sudden stop at the end that does it.

It Doesn’t Work
Crime is often used as an excuse to disarm that ultimate authority, the people, but common sense shows that more gun control will not decrease murders and violent crimes in the United States. There is an open debate regarding the relationship between gun control, and violence and other crimes. The numbers of lives saved or lost by gun ownership is debated by criminologists. Research difficulties include the difficulty of accounting accurately for confrontations in which no shots are fired, and jurisdictional differences in the definition of "crime". In other words, statistics mean absolutely nothing. The FBI's report of 10,177 gunshot deaths in 2006, which is a tragedy in my opinion, but then there is the fact that 2.5 million crimes de-escalated by armed citizens often by merely displaying a weapon. This debate should not be decides on numbers and statistics but rather reason, rationality and common sense. First off if we remove guns from the general population we leave law-abiding citizens vulnerable to those who choose to disregard the law. In other words, guns will be in the hands of criminals, we create new laws that restrict the citizen’s ability to protect themselves, and another law that will be ignored by criminals. The last time I checked the definition of a criminal is one who breaks the law, those who murder and commit violent crimes will simply choose to ignore these laws, just as they have to others and take advantage of the disarmed citizen. Take for example Washing DC, in which there is a thirty –two year ban on all functional firearms. Before the District banned handguns in 1976, the murder rate had been declining. But soon afterward, the rate climbed to the highest of all large U.S. cities, some years Washington DC became the murder capitol of the world there have been more killings per capita in Washington, D.C. than in any other major city. There is definitely a correlation, with the firearm ban and the rise in violent crimes and deaths. A complete opposite of what gun control advocates claim. What happen when we prevent citizens from protecting themselves is that a criminal who disregard the law and acknowledge the fact there is a very likely chance that their next victim is not armed. Gun control advocates may claim that gun controls have been efficient in preventing crimes in the nations of Britain and Japan. Although the success of gun control is apparent in the UK and Japan, which have very strict gun control, while Israel, Canada, and Switzerland at the same time have low homicide rates and high rates of gun distribution. Let’s have a thought experiment, and I will try to stay PC, let say that by law, firearms are issued to all females in the United States, they can keep it, sell it, whatever. Females, who make up only 3.8 percent of perpetrators of all violent crimes, but oddly enough make up a large percent of its victims, so technically guns don’t kill people and neither do women. Who is going to rape, rob or murder if there is likely chance that Janie's Got a Gun. Gun control advocates do not face the facts that more of socio-economic ties to the causes of crimes and violent deaths in our country, and stricter gun control laws do not end problem, and probably makes it worse.

Our founding fathers and the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights created the second amendment, so that there is in existence an armed populace ready for the overthrow of the United States government. Our founding fathers, who had just fought an oppressive government through armed revolution, understood that the rights of free people to form militias and to be armed to protect life, liberty, and property have been shown historically to be essential for the preservation of freedom. One of the basic rights of the people, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, is that “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” They saw that an armed populace was necessary for the prevention and abolishment of tyranny. Replacing elected officials by voting is sufficient to keep the government in check, although there are numerous examples in history of elected officials assuming absolute power, Hitler (Godwin’s Law) for example, pro-gun groups would argue that the only way to enforce democracy is through having a means of resistance. Our founding fathers saw that the Citizen is the supreme authority to protect the new nation against abuses for all time and the second amendment embodies this by backing that ultimate citizen authority with force. As Patrick stated, founders created a system that made it possible for change, a difficult one nonetheless, but if all fails, and tyranny prevails, the population is armed and ready for the next revolution. It’s the spirit of the law that matters, not the word, we can talk about intricate details about whether our not the second amendment deals with muskets or AK-47, but that is beside the point. We might as well argue whether or not freedom of the press protects blogs on the internet. The second amendment is just as relevant to today, as it was 200 years ago. If we remove guns from the general populace we remove an essential element for the existence of democracy, in which power and armament is in the hands of the people, not that of policeman and the military. Even Hitler recognizes this by stating that "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to permit the conquered Eastern peoples to have arms. History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." Popular quotes that simplify this People should not fear their government; their government should fear the people- V for Vendetta. The second amendment is the amendment that protects the others.-Charles Hesston.

Stop making them, and then stop making bullets for them, and then turn all the tanks into plowshears, and then lick a toad la la la la!:D

Bible?

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

Source it.
Where did you get the information that people with guns kill people more often than people without guns?

I know a number of people who own guns and have killed exactly no one.

"guns don't kill people, people kill people" is as nonsensical and moronic as saying "jumping off the empire state building doesn't kill people, it's the pavement outside the empire state building that kills people"

;) But it's NOT the fall.... it's the sudden stop at the end....

Oh wait... must decorate appropriately....

:gundge::gundge::gundge:

:D

Colour (lulz) me shocked. And blue. I like blue. But what color is shocked?

According to The Sims 2, a sort of smudgy all over soot look. With frizzy hair.

A gun isn't very scary if it isnt' loaded.

Who knew bayonets where attached solely for intimidation purposes...
Woops.

It Doesn’t Work


Fix that key called 'return' or 'enter'.

Source it.
Where did you get the information that people with guns kill people more often than people without guns?


I haven't got a source about this, however it probably does exist. Don't u see the simple logic that a person with a loaded gun in his hand is more likely to shoot and potentially kill someone than a person holding a trout in his hand?:confused:

I haven't got a source about this, however it probably does exist. Don't u see the simple logic that a person with a loaded gun in his hand is more likely to shoot and potentially kill someone than a person holding a trout in his hand?:confused:

It depends greatly upon the person predisposition to kill (although it certaainly would be easier with a gun... especially this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Barrett-M82-latrun-exhibition-1.jpg/800px-Barrett-M82-latrun-exhibition-1.jpg)).

That would be places like Ireland and the UK then, right?
They seem to be doing ok, crime statistics wise...

Are guns outright banned in those places, or just far more difficult to obtain than in the U.S.?

I think the OP means "should we allow guns or ban them outright?".

What's wrong with clichés or other peoples arguments? They are as good to start a discussion as your own arguments.

Meh your are right of course. There is a broad mix of people here from slobs to snobs. Freedom of expresion is (reletivly) garunteed here so you carry on. Just develop a thickskin, ingnore those you find snobbish, shout every once in a while, and vent to your hearts content.

Ultimatly though the level of debate you'll get here very much depends on the level you are willing to put in.

I haven't got a source about this, however it probably does exist. Don't u see the simple logic that a person with a loaded gun in his hand is more likely to shoot and potentially kill someone than a person holding a trout in his hand?:confused:
I'd say a person with a gun is more likely to kill another person with that gun, than one without -- Your generalization is probably right, but you can go to the FBI and find stat upon stat that will compare gun killings to trout killings.

Chris Rock said it nicely... just make bullets more expensive. If every bullet cost $ 5000, people would think before shooting ;)

Chris Rock isn't funny. At all. Even Peter Kay, in all his professionally "Northern", corpulent glory, is funnier than him.

In any case, I would endorse the legalisation of guns in the UK. Not that it would impinge upon the flow of firearms into illegal organisations, however, with due background checks and required licenses, the protection provided by a firearm, and the right to gun down burglers and the like, would be an excellent counter.

Can you cite some form of medical evidence to suggest that all sane people in England don't want to own guns? Or that only insane people desire to possess guns?

I feel that I am quite sane (now, I'm not in England, but I feel that it is nonetheless relevant), I don't commit violent crimes, and to my knowledge I don't repress memories or emotions... I desire to (legally) own a firearm or two.

I find you conclusion not factually supported, and therefor moot.

Do you feel able enough to gauge the mood of the majority of 'normal' people were ever you live? Could you, for example, say whether or not your nation is worried about any one political aspect, be that street crime, or unemployment or immigration?

If so then you are taping into the same 'source' that the other poster did. I agree, I belive that I can say without fear of too much contradiction, that the majority of the 'normal' non criminal 'sane' people in this country do not want to own firearms.

So is my point also moot, or does my point have a err umm point?

Yes you do. When you post a topic on a discussion forum you are asking us to respect you and your opinion enough to take our time out of our days lives and work to discuss it with you. Not to agree with it, not to support it, but to discuss it. You are asking us to respect you enough to find you worthy of our time.


Well I don't agree with that at all, it is soooo highly a subjective thing that you just can't get away with judgeing everybodys reasons for being here by your own measurements.

Some come simply to flame and troll, I don't think that is asking for respect. Some come to hone their debateing skills, perhaps a little implied mutal respect there, perhaps not, some use this place to chat to their friends, some to learn, and I could go on......

But we're sidetracking here.

Heh yeah all part of the human condition, umm or should that be the Peeps condition.

Bible?

What you can get high from licking a Bible? Sweeet I have a whole staxck of differant ones, which one is the best?(I bet it's the book of Mormon)

It depends greatly upon the person predisposition to kill (although it certaainly would be easier with a gun... especially this one (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/Barrett-M82-latrun-exhibition-1.jpg/800px-Barrett-M82-latrun-exhibition-1.jpg)).

I would have thought it would also thought it depended on the situation - people in road rage incidents don't behave in the way they normally do. There are many emotional situations where people will react with seemingly out-of-character violence.

Also it is illegal to be drunk in charge of a vehicle is it illegal in the US to be drunk in charge of a firearm?

Who knew bayonets where attached solely for intimidation purposes...
Woops.

Ever try to clean up after using a bayonet? That's a 12 hr job. Minimum.

I haven't got a source about this, however it probably does exist. Don't u see the simple logic that a person with a loaded gun in his hand is more likely to shoot and potentially kill someone than a person holding a trout in his hand?:confused:

Seriously, stop with the intentional misspellings. They aren't funny, cute, or clever. They make you look ignorant and immature.

Meh your are right of course. There is a broad mix of people here from slobs to snobs. Freedom of expresion is (reletivly) garunteed here so you carry on. Just develop a thickskin, ingnore those you find snobbish, shout every once in a while, and vent to your hearts content.

Ultimatly though the level of debate you'll get here very much depends on the level you are willing to put in.

And that's why we have 7 pages of spam.

And that's why we have 7 pages of spam.

Heh one mans(or womans) spam is another mans (or womans) sandwhich!

Repeating tired old catch phrases that every one of us has heard a million times, without adding a shred of your own input, creativity, or intellect isn't thought provoking and it isn't innovative.


Slogans are for people not smart enough to think in full sentences.

Heh one mans(or womans) spam is another mans (or womans) sandwhich!

Hey, I like a pair of plastic pants as much as the nest person, I'm simply speaking the truth.

Slogans are for people not smart enough to think in full sentences.

Everyone who speaks in absolutes is an idiot.

Slogans are for people not smart enough to think in full sentences.

Bwhahahahahah great slogan I may plagerise that!

Bwhahahahahah great slogan I may plagerise that!

Your welcome to it but i think the cite would be hillarious. Could you imagine putting that in a college paper and the footnote says Intestinal Fluids?

Your welcome to it but i think the cite would be hillarious. Could you imagine putting that in a college paper and the footnote says Intestinal Fluids?

Nonono did you not hear me umm err type? PLAGERISE!

Are guns outright banned in those places, or just far more difficult to obtain than in the U.S.?

I think the OP means "should we allow guns or ban them outright?".

Shotguns and certain types of rifle are very restricted, everything else is completely illegal, and there is currently moves to ban replicas too.

Although I think certain aspects (relating to replicas predominetly) of the legislation goes a bit far I wholly support to banning of guns, especially handguns.

Yes, criminals may get guns whatever, but by making them more difficult to own, it will be significantly more difficult for them to get hold of them and there will be less of them on the streets. They're more difficult to obtain so they'll be out of the reach of your average mugger (and let's face it a lot of deaths by handguns are actually accidents, especially those during robberies) and the serious criminals who own them, can get arrested for it without having to wait for them to use it in a crime. The total number of firearm deaths in the UK was around 40, because yes a few get through, but significantly less than they would if they were legal. Permits/checks don't work, because then the guns are out in the general public and the vast majority of illegally owned firearms were legally purchased somewhere along the line (then either sold on, yes it's illegal, but it's quite difficult to track down, or stolen).

In regards to the argument that if people can't use a gun, they'll use something else: guns are particular a problem because guns are easy to kill a lot of people in a short space of time with very little effort or training (of course it's even worse if you're not skilled, because then you're incredibly likely to hit bystanders than the target). Accidents are also incredibly common with guns, and are highly likely to be serious or fatal. People who own guns, especially handguns are more likely to be shot with them themselves or accidentally hit a loved one than succesfully defend their home against an intruder.

Now hunting/gun club shooting is a somewhat different matter, but I fundamentally disagree with any argument for legalising handguns or gun ownership for home defence, not because the people who want to own a gun will necessarily want to kill someone but because by having guns in the system, the ability to kill someone with frankly minimal thought and effort becomes too easy, too available, and all too likley to fall into the hands of the very people that gun owners want to protect themselves against.

*snip for longitude*

Wow. Britian sure is a strange place.

On that same note, talking about firearms on an international forum has highlighted the fundimental differences between cultures. It makes me glad that I live on this side of the pond.

And that's why we have 7 pages of spam.

As it should be :)

An homage to the long lost Spamalanche...

*owns multiple firearms*

*has not shot anyone*

Used to own multiple firearms (legally)
Did shoot someone (legally) :sniper:

Plague rats. It's the only sensible solution.

Not nuking it from orbit? Aaaw :(

Used to own multiple firearms (legally)
Did shoot someone (legally) :sniper:

Tell us more.

I don't start it, I just end it. Fuck them for driving on my ass. Guns are a great deterrant. Usually I just have to wave it around. Saves ammo.

Same thing with the kids, when you wave it areound the house. Saves me from spanking them anymore.

Wow. Britian sure is a strange place.

On that same note, talking about firearms on an international forum has highlighted the fundimental differences between cultures. It makes me glad that I live on this side of the pond.

And makes me incredibly glad I live on this side, guess we're both living in the right places :D

Tell us more.

Tell us more, did she put up a fight?

*Breaks into a musical number*

Same thing with the kids, when you wave it areound the house. Saves me from spanking them anymore.

You wave your kids around the house? Sounds rather cumbersome.

Same thing with the kids, when you wave it areound the house. Saves me from spanking them anymore.

Spanking is barbaric. I waterboard my kids. :cool:

Yeah I agree.

I agree.

I agree.

I strongly disagree! :mad:

You wave your kids around the house? Sounds rather cumbersome.

Builds great upper body strength :)

Seriously, stop with the intentional misspellings. They aren't funny, cute, or clever. They make you look ignorant and immature.

But I am ignorant and immature...

Spanking is barbaric. I waterboard my kids. :cool:

Sounds wet and messy... I would only waterboard Fox News reporters.

I strongly disagree! :mad:

You need to provide a source for that statement.

Builds great upper body strength :)

I'm just thinking about the condition of your walls. All dented and marked and bloody. Your wife must hate you in the hallway, but love you in bed. Because if she didn't you would not have children. Unless you are a woman. Or something. Yeah.

But I am ignorant and immature...

There's just some internetisms that irritate me more than others. And being too lazy to spell out three letter words annoys me greatly.

What other forum?
The other forum!

*Plays scary music*
Are guns outright banned in those places, or just far more difficult to obtain than in the U.S.?
Actually, they're just hidden beneath the pudding.

Sounds wet and messy... I would only waterboard Fox News reporters.

Then you need a whole room. Children are tiny. You can waterboard them in your bathtub.

You need to provide a source for that statement.

Source. (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hasselhofflove7qq.jpg)

Happy now?

I'm just thinking about the condition of your walls. All dented and marked and bloody. Your wife must hate you in the hallway, but love you in bed. Because if she didn't you would not have children. Unless you are a woman. Or something. Yeah.

Are you hitting on me?

If you have owned a gun in the last 90 years, then you are 100% more likely to have been Adolf Hitler than someone who hasn't.


FACT


I think this speaks for itself

Source?

Actually, they're just hidden beneath the pudding.

What kind of pudding?

Source?

Link to source (http://www.unbuffered.com/moskau.html).

Also, shouldn't we be talking about ammo as well?

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hungryrd5.jpg

What kind of pudding?

Rum plum pudding.

Source. (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hasselhofflove7qq.jpg)

Happy now?

I don't think that's reliable. That's not what wiki sez.:mad:

If you have owned a gun in the last 90 years, then you are 100% more likely to have been Adolf Hitler than someone who hasn't.


FACT


I think this speaks for itself

If you have owned a gun in the last 90 years, then you are 100% more likely to have been Adolf Hitler than someone who hasn't.


FACT


I think this speaks for itself

Godwin's law says you're a failure.

Rum plum pudding.

I find your lack of delicious pudding disturbing.

Ever try to clean up after using a bayonet? That's a 12 hr job. Minimum.

When in doubt, hire a Mexican.

I don't think that's reliable. That's not what wiki sez.:mad:

Conservapedia is more trustworthy anyway...

Source. (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hasselhofflove7qq.jpg)

Happy now?

This is a tasteful debate, one in which you seem to disagree with me. So you're wrong.

Link to source (http://www.unbuffered.com/moskau.html).

Also, shouldn't we be talking about ammo as well?

http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/hungryrd5.jpg

My source (http://leekeatyoursoul.ytmnd.com/) says otherwise.

When in doubt, hire a Mexican.

Mexicans will always get the job done.

I find your lack of delicious pudding disturbing.

Then bring me chocolate before I send Pauley Shore to your house! Then you'll want a gun, I assure you...

This is a tasteful debate, one in which you seem to disagree with me. So you're wrong.

^That.

This is a tasteful debate, one in which you seem to disagree with me. So you're wrong.

Damnit!

Well, I blame Ruffy for being wrong...

Damnit!

Well, I blame Ruffy for being wrong...

LIes.

Then bring me chocolate before I send Pauley Shore to your house! Then you'll want a gun, I assure you...

Don't make me defend my property from washed up pseudocomedians. Because I will.

My source (http://leekeatyoursoul.ytmnd.com/) says otherwise.

*asplodes*

Damnit!

Well, I blame Ruffy for being wrong...

Source.

*asplodes*

My source pwns.:cool:

That's both scary and makes me want to shoot something.

Thus proving my point.

My source (http://leekeatyoursoul.ytmnd.com/) says otherwise.

That's both scary and makes me want to shoot something.

The real pressing question is; if I shoot someone in the woods and a tree falls on me, does it make a sound?

Don't make me defend my property from washed up pseudocomedians. Because I will.

I will make you, sah! http://www.sogospellovers.com/forums/images/smilies/pistols.gif

Now put your bullets where your mouth is!

But the OP said...



...so I'm not convinced.

Maybe this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/51781486_e9481d452b.jpg) will convince you then.

I think I've made my point here. It's useless to argue with you if you can't see the simple logic.

Source.

This should end the argument. (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Agreement.jpg)

Thus proving my point.

But the OP said...

Suggestions?

...so I'm not convinced.

Maybe this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/51781486_e9481d452b.jpg) will convince you then.

I think I've made my point here. It's useless to argue with you if you can't see the simple logic.

I think we did a good job arguing this.

I think we did a good job arguing this.

Yes, I agree.

This thread is shaping up nicely. Carry on. :)

Oh, Here (http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/pickle.jpg) is my contibution to the debate.

This should end the argument. (http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u275/Gravlen/NSG/Agreement.jpg)

Biased source.

Maybe this (http://farm1.static.flickr.com/27/51781486_e9481d452b.jpg) will convince you then.

I think I've made my point here. It's useless to argue with you if you can't see the simple logic.
You haven't convinced me with that source. I think you need to start over or offer me a bribe.

Regardless, I will claim that hypothetical guns don't kill hypothetical people, because if you outlaw sugar only outlaws will have sweets.

This thread is shaping up nicely. Carry on. :)

Oh, Here (http://www.boomspeed.com/looonatic/pickle.jpg) is my contibution to the debate.

Look at the size of that gun! :eek:

Pfft! Prove it!

My safety lock wont unlock. (http://www.waynecounty.com/sheriff/newsroom/imgs/GunLock.jpg)

You haven't convinced me with that source. I think you need to start over or offer me a bribe.

Regardless, I will claim that hypothetical guns don't kill hypothetical people, because if you outlaw sugar only outlaws will have sweets.

hahahahhahaha Your funny.

Biased source.

Pfft! Prove it!

Pfft! Prove it!

Totally biased. You really have to do better than that.

Look at the size of that gun! :eek:

SHe seems oddly satisfied.

:eek:

:)

My safety lock wont unlock. (http://www.waynecounty.com/sheriff/newsroom/imgs/GunLock.jpg)

You know, when I read these posts about the big weapons of other guys, I start thinking about grabbing a heavy gun with both hands, loading it slowly by pushing firm and well-rounded bullets into the magazine, inserting the magazine into the naked gun, cocking the firearm gently before take a long, hard look at the erect target at the end of my sight. Having the target looking back up into the stiff barrel of my loaded gun while I firmly squeeze the trigger, feeling the thrust of the recoil and the warmth of the gun as it ejects the hot cartridge from its body, and knowing that the bullet will achieve full penetration of the target and expand in the moist, succulent flesh...

It just makes me think more about the need for gun control.

hahahahhahaha Your funny.

Damn your fancy debating skills! I cannot win, so I shall have to concede the argument to you :(

You know, when I read these posts about the big weapons of other guys, I start thinking about grabbing a heavy gun with both hands, loading it slowly by pushing firm and well-rounded bullets into the magazine, inserting the magazine into the naked gun, cocking the firearm gently before take a long, hard look at the erect target at the end of my sight. Having the target looking back up into the stiff barrel of my loaded gun while I firmly squeeze the trigger, feeling the thrust of the recoil and the warmth of the gun as it ejects the hot cartridge from its body, and knowing that the bullet will achieve full penetration of the target and expand in the moist, succulent flesh...

It just makes me think more about the need for gun control.

Do gun locks have a tendency to break?

SHe seems oddly satisfied.

:eek:

:)

Maybe she just really like cucumbers...

You know, when I read these posts about the big weapons of other guys, I start thinking about grabbing a heavy gun with both hands, loading it slowly by pushing firm and well-rounded bullets into the magazine, inserting the magazine into the naked gun, cocking the firearm gently before take a long, hard look at the erect target at the end of my sight. Having the target looking back up into the stiff barrel of my loaded gun while I firmly squeeze the trigger, feeling the thrust of the recoil and the warmth of the gun as it ejects the hot cartridge from its body, and knowing that the bullet will achieve full penetration of the target and expand in the moist, succulent flesh...

It just makes me think more about the need for gun control.

The innuendo in that is appalling, i had horrible spasms for 10 minutes after reading that.:)
Honestly utterly revolting innuendo. :D
just as well you didn't mention double barrelled shotguns, for double the...no i'll stop there.

Damn your fancy debating skills! I cannot win, so I shall have to concede the argument to you :(

*does victory dance*

*shoots gun in the air*

Do gun locks have a tendency to break?

I wouldn't know, I don't swing that way.

The innuendo in that is appalling, i had horrible spasms for 10 minutes after reading that.:)
Honestly utterly revolting innuendo. :D
just as well you didn't mention double barrelled shotguns, for double the...no i'll stop there.

Innuendo? :confused: What innuendo?

Innuendo? :confused: What innuendo?

You know what i mean.
You and your guns.

You know what i mean.
You and your guns.

Now I'm sure you're hitting on me!



http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

Now I'm sure you're hitting on me!



http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-goumoticon0bk.gif

That's what they want you to think.
And that smiley looked really freaky too.:eek:
damn NSG how on earth did i miss that hour? i swear the time is trying to catch me out. I'll have to use my timewarp powers.

People with guns tend to kill people more often than people without guns. But in a land where guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns....

Suggestions?

You people ar e being way to liberal. People kill people, not guns. You look at a prison how do people kill people in there? They use silverware, tools, and anything else that one can find. SO LETS BAN Sivlerware. :headbang: If people would pull their heads out of their Third Point of Contact and realize that some people are just BAD. You give them chance after chance and the screw it up. YET you blame the tools that a select few people used. DO SOME RESEARCH FROM A NON-BIAS RESEARCHER

You people ar e being way to liberal. People kill people, not guns. You look at a prison how do people kill people in there? They use silverware, tools, and anything else that one can find. SO LETS BAN Sivlerware. :headbang: If people would pull their heads out of their Third Point of Contact and realize that some people are just BAD. You give them chance after chance and the screw it up. YET you blame the tools that a select few people used. DO SOME RESEARCH FROM A NON-BIAS RESEARCHER

That's a great idea! We should ban silverware. Silverware is far more dangerous than guns!

You people ar e being way to liberal. People kill people, not guns. You look at a prison how do people kill people in there? They use silverware, tools, and anything else that one can find. SO LETS BAN Sivlerware. :headbang: If people would pull their heads out of their Third Point of Contact and realize that some people are just BAD. You give them chance after chance and the screw it up. YET you blame the tools that a select few people used. DO SOME RESEARCH FROM A NON-BIAS RESEARCHER
:p

That's a great idea! We should ban silverware. Silverware is far more dangerous than guns!

Seriously. I poked myself with a fork before. :(

He's a NONBIAS REASERCHER. We should listen to him.

how about we just ban neither. You liberals, always with the laws and the banning. Why can't you just leave people and their forks alone?

I like using chopsticks. Therefore chopsticks are good. I shall lobby for chopsticks to be the only eating utensil on the table. It's what's best for everyone.

That's a great idea! We should ban silverware. Silverware is far more dangerous than guns!

No no...

It's Sivlerware. That makes it completely different :p

You people ar e being way to liberal. People kill people, not guns. You look at a prison how do people kill people in there? They use silverware, tools, and anything else that one can find. SO LETS BAN Sivlerware. :headbang: If people would pull their heads out of their Third Point of Contact and realize that some people are just BAD. You give them chance after chance and the screw it up. YET you blame the tools that a select few people used. DO SOME RESEARCH FROM A NON-BIAS RESEARCHER

Welcome to NSG

how about we just ban neither. You liberals, always with the laws and the banning. Why can't you just leave people and their forks alone?

Leave who alone? (http://dlisted.com/files/87873067.jpg)

Seriously. I poked myself with a fork before. :(

Thus proving my point.

Seriously. I poked myself with a fork before. :(

In the eye?

That's a great idea! We should ban silverware. Silverware is far more dangerous than guns!

how about we just ban neither. You liberals, always with the laws and the banning. Why can't you just leave people and their forks alone?

No no...

It's Sivlerware. That makes it completely different :p

Ban that too. Jerks and their Sivlerware. :mad:

That's a great idea! We should ban silverware. Silverware is far more dangerous than guns!

You lycantrophile :(

Here's proof Sivlerware should be banned:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a1/2AJD02Glitter.jpg/150px-2AJD02Glitter.jpg
Look at this fellow. He's perfectly happy. He has no wounds to speak of. Further more HE'S ALIVE. And look closely at the photo. No Sivlerware anywhere to be seen. It proves that the quality of life improves when people don't use Sivlerware.

Here's proof Sivlerware should be banned:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a1/2AJD02Glitter.jpg/150px-2AJD02Glitter.jpg
Look at this fellow. He's perfectly happy. He has no wounds to speak of. Further more HE'S ALIVE. And look closely at the photo. No Sivlerware anywhere to be seen. It proves that the quality of life improves when people don't use Sivlerware.

I just see more undead-bashing from you. Why is it so important to be alive all of a sudden? Equal rites now!

I just see more undead-bashing from you. Why is it so important to be alive all of a sudden? Equal rites now!

Undead are second class citizens.:gundge:

Anybody that thinks that guns should be illegal should be forced to spend one week at a Guns are Fun Re-Education Camp. Heck, I should take a week off and go to a Guns are Fun Camp. A Guns are Fun Camp will provide a weeek of instruction on gun handling. Every camper will select two models of shotguns, handguns, and rifles. Each of these guns will have a diiferent action. Then, every camper will learn at least one type of shooting activity with each gun.

After the antigun folks become more postjudicial on the subject of guns, I will respect their opinions. Otherwise, they are spouting a bunch of prejudicial nonsense. Word.

Anybody that thinks that guns should be illegal should be forced to spend one week at a Guns are Fun Re-Education Camp. Heck, I should take a week off and go to a Guns are Fun Camp. A Guns are Fun Camp will provide a weeek of instruction on gun handling. Every camper will select two models of shotguns, handguns, and rifles. Each of these guns will have a diiferent action. Then, every camper will learn at least one type of shooting activity with each gun.

After the antigun folks become more postjudicial on the subject of guns, I will respect their opinions. Otherwise, they are spouting a bunch of prejudicial nonsense. Word.

That camp should be mandatory.

molon labe

I own a shotgun. I bought it primarily for home defense. It's like a fire extinguisher - I hope I don't need it, but it's better to have and never need than vice-versa.

Here in the U.S. we have two protections. The U.S. Constitution prohibits restrictions on the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (weapons). this applies to the militia (all adults, see http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.shtml ). Also, the state constitution in my state clearly protects the right to own and openly carry firearms. A permit is required for concealed carry.

Violent crimes are highest in cities where there are heavy restrictions on gun ownership or outright bans (Washington, D.C., for example) but states where concealed carry permit laws have been enacted have seen a drop in crime. Would a criminal be as likely to commit a crime if the risk of death increases? I doubt it.

Remember, a tyrant cannot control an armed population. An armed society is a free society.

Anybody that thinks that guns should be legal should be forced to spend one week at a Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Re-Education Camp. Heck, I should take a week off and go to a Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Camp. A Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Camp will provide a week of instruction on gun handling and first aid. Every camper will select two models of shotguns, handguns, and rifles. Each of these guns will have a different action. Then, every camper will learn how it is to be shot in a different place with each gun.

After the pro-gun folks become more postjudicial on the subject of gun wounds, I will respect their opinions. Otherwise, they are spouting a bunch of prejudicial nonsense. Word.

:)

Anybody that thinks that guns should be legal should be forced to spend one week at a Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Re-Education Camp. Heck, I should take a week off and go to a Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Camp. A Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Camp will provide a week of instruction on gun handling and first aid. Every camper will select two models of shotguns, handguns, and rifles. Each of these guns will have a different action. Then, every camper will learn how it is to be shot in a different place with each gun.

After the pro-gun folks become more postjudicial on the subject of gun wounds, I will respect their opinions. Otherwise, they are spouting a bunch of prejudicial nonsense. Word.

:)

Ooo Wee! Woah!

Allow law-abiding citizens to own guns, but use sensible restrictions, such as waiting periods and background checks.

Yea, that makes the most sense.

Anybody that thinks that guns should be legal should be forced to spend one week at a Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Re-Education Camp. Heck, I should take a week off and go to a Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Camp. A Guns are Bad Mmm'kay Camp will provide a week of instruction on gun handling and first aid. Every camper will select two models of shotguns, handguns, and rifles. Each of these guns will have a different action. Then, every camper will learn how it is to be shot in a different place with each gun.

After the pro-gun folks become more postjudicial on the subject of gun wounds, I will respect their opinions. Otherwise, they are spouting a bunch of prejudicial nonsense. Word.

:)

Guns are only fun if nobody gets hurt. The same goes for silverware.

Remember, a tyrant cannot control an armed population. An armed society is a free society.

Yeah but the government has tanks and missiles and aircraft carriers, I just have a ruger .22. Plus the government knows that I have a ruger. They recorded my identification at the gun shop when I bought the gun.

Yeah but the government has tanks and missiles and aircraft carriers, I just have a ruger .22. Plus the government knows that I have a ruger. They recorded my identification at the gun shop when I bought the gun.

Iraq. Guns and homemade explosives.

molon labe
, a tyrant cannot control an armed population. An armed society is a free society.

I'm not so sure about that, all the tyrant needs to do is piss off some other countries it has oil deals with, stop trade with other countries, then the country sort of has to take him out, or starve, where in that situation are they free?
By the same reasoning if my above point is incorrect, am i free when i hold a knife? eventually it will rust, or snap, even guns have limitations, you can't carry endless amounts of ammo.
I think what you mean is a gun gives you more power, but in a country of millions if they all have guns and you also have a gun, then you don't really have much power at all in comparison to the rest of society.

Collectiveness, my friend. The French resistance fighter with a Lebel doesn't have power. A few thousand French resistance fighters with Lebels do.

But how can a government control it's population if they form large groups with lots of guns? ohhhhhh, i see, still i it didn't help America when you've got President Bush and he looks pretty tyrannical to me, only difference is he grins alot and doesn't make any stupid statues of himself.

I'm not so sure about that, all the tyrant needs to do is piss off some other countries it has oil deals with, stop trade with other countries, then the country sort of has to take him out, or starve, where in that situation are they free?
By the same reasoning if my above point is incorrect, am i free when i hold a knife? eventually it will rust, or snap, even guns have limitations, you can't carry endless amounts of ammo.
I think what you mean is a gun gives you more power, but in a country of millions if they all have guns and you also have a gun, then you don't really have much power at all in comparison to the rest of society.

Collectiveness, my friend. The French resistance fighter with a Lebel doesn't have power. A few thousand French resistance fighters with Lebels do.

Hells yeah, I'm going to get a C-96 Broomhandle Mouser come hell or high water.

Tell us more, did she put up a fight?

*Breaks into a musical number*

I.
Hate.
You.
For.
Reminding.
Me.
Of.
That.
Movie.



:p

Mexicans will always get the job done.

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/6487/owlorlmente5ot.jpg

Hells yeah, I'm going to get a C-96 Broomhandle Mouser come hell or high water.

It's most well known as Mauser, although according to Wiki, Mouser can be used as well.

"What was to become a Mauser, or Mouser, factory opened on July 31, 1811, when Friedrich I of Württemberg established a royal weapons factory in Oberndorf, a small town in the Black Forest. The factory opened for business the next year, employing 133 workers."