NationStates Jolt Archive

It's also not what you said...
Actually, it's quite in line with what I said.
The drunk guy would knock first, then shout, only then try to break the door. And here would also knock to the neighbor first, my neighbors for instance have my keys. Only then break the door. Not that he would succeed with any door that isn't rotten all through anyway.

Also, a drunk guy would realize his mistake after the warning shot, at least.


Rural Georgia is 'libereality'? Clearly, you've never been there.
So you're a liberal redneck? An interesting beast.
But out here, plinking is shooting guns. The metal ones.


Yes. Well done. But that's not it's defining characteristic as a crime. Burglary is a crime of opportunity. So - someone who needs access to quick money for... say... a fix, is more likely to burglarise than to stage an extensive campaign of wire fraud.
Exactly. It's likely to be some junkies who needs quick money for a fix. It's not an assault team prepared to surround and attack a proper house. It's a group Everyman Joe can defend himself against.


Pointing out that 'intent' (which you cited) is only an appropriate term to describe something that is.. well, intended... isn't 'semantic bullshit'.
I have no idea what you're getting at. Expected hostile intent, and overt hostile acts (breaking and entering) are sufficient reason for use of lethal force.


I wonder what the state laws say?
With me entirely. If there's a possibility that a reasonable person could believe that the intruder might cause him injury, he's justified in using any force necessary against the intruder.


Which is irrelevent... because they will still be human,
Not in my eyes, and not in anyone's when they're dead.

[/QUOTE]and that would be a rather weak excuse to try to use in your trial.[/QUOTE]
Of course, I don't intend to say this to the cops. I'll say that I thought the perp was going to kill me. He was armed, he broke in. And that's not an excuse or defense. It's justification. It proves that my act of self-defense was right.

Aren't you the lucky one?
Not everyone has bulletproof glass in their windows.
Everyone who wants to. It's XXI century, it no longer costs a fortune to protect your house. Thick high-strength glass is not much more expensive than regular, modern protective films start at under a hundred per window, and metal frames are widely available. The work can be done by yourself. It's even easier with the doors.


Nothing reasonable about it.
Armed and equipped people breaking into my house? Of course I can have reasonable suspicion that they want to clean out the house and then kill me to cover their tracks.


Yes, by killing everyone. You probably even think it's original.
Nope, it's not original. It's how it's done and how it should be done. We shouldn't show any weakness. Violent crime should be stopped in the harshest way possible.

You're not. Morality is objective, and is not something you can define for yourself. But the only person that matters is myself, otherwise you're admitting that the feelings of others that includes society matters more to you than the 'most important concept in the world'. Therefore, any action I take is morally acceptable as long as I, being myself, am completely certain that it is morally acceptable. Because the mind used to define 'objective moral principle' is mine. Not anyone else's. You see, the concept of the word 'I' comes from the Latin word EGO, which literally means 'I/oneself'. Completely precluding the inclusion of anyone but myself. Therefore, as defined by my definition (Being the only one that matters.), "objective moral principles" allow me to end the life of another human being, who is not myself, and, by this definition, not as important as I.



Except that's not the case here; you're simply building a strawman that bears no relation to what my philosophy actually is.

Perhaps the fault is mine for not being clear enough, but regardless, if you're willing to accept that what you are claiming is nowhere near what my philosophy actually is, I'd be more than happy to try and explain it to you again so we can avoid this.I think you don't understand your own philosophy. :rolleyes:

It's not that I'm afraid...
That's what you say, but not what you post.


It's not paranoia. If I were paranoid, I'd run into the woods in some remote region. I'm not doing that, in fact, I'm not even causing myself any discomfort. I merely spend some spare time and money on improving my safety against possible emergencies.
You should read up on paranoia. Running into the woods and causing yourself discomfort are not necessary parts.

Rather, we can just look at the next part

It's not that I exactly *can't* stay reasonably safe without it, but it makes me even safer. Even having bullet-resistant doors and windows is of little use when you don't have a weapon of your own - given enough time, any passive defense can be breached. Brick and cement can be hammered out, then the frame hinges can be cut with a cutting torch or an abrasive saw. Passive protection just gives you the time to defend yourself while having an advantage.
...where you show that you're prepared for the instance when a roving gang of criminals will lay siege to your house.


Insanity happens, but in practice, gangs are formed by lowlifes.
Define "lowlife".

Nope, it's not original. It's how it's done and how it should be done. We shouldn't show any weakness. Violent crime should be stopped in the harshest way possible.

As should nonviolent crimes such as burglary, apparently.

Yay for escalation and a civilian arms race!

As should nonviolent crimes such as burglary, apparently.

Yay for escalation and a civilian arms race!

Armed robbery is not nonviolent, and if I had someone barge into my house unarmed, I might take out a kneecap after the first warning anyway. let's face it, not all of us are both ridiculously strong and bulletproof.

It's not that I'm afraid, just better safe than sorry. Plus, if a burglary does someday happen, by some remote gang, my house is likely to be one of the first targets, there's a lot to take inside. As a result, I try to keep it the best protected one as well, to counterweight that. With the modern technology, it's not particularly difficult or expensive for a private citizen to protect his home to a sufficient degree to discourage the potential offenders. So why not make use of it.
If your spending over a thousand dollars on it, then we have different definitions of expensive. But then I am a student, I consider anything over a pound expensive.


It's not that I exactly *can't* stay reasonably safe without it, but it makes me even safer. Even having bullet-resistant doors and windows is of little use when you don't have a weapon of your own - given enough time, any passive defense can be breached. Brick and cement can be hammered out, then the frame hinges can be cut with a cutting torch or an abrasive saw. Passive protection just gives you the time to defend yourself while having an advantage.

Sounding more and more like a Marine Assault team. Lowlifes turning up with sledgehammers, cutting torches, abrasive saws, plus the generators and gas tanks? Seriously?

You shouldn't have to spend large amounts of money to protect your home, household, or self. If someone attacks, they deserve the consequences. And besides, street gangs have conducted home invasions from time to time. not very much, but I believe it's happened in California.

You should read up on paranoia. Running into the woods and causing yourself discomfort are not necessary parts.
I live my life pretty fine, paranoia doesn't bother me. I even engage in dangerous activities, such as high-power airsoft games and driving.


...where you show that you're prepared for the instance when a roving gang of criminals will lay siege to your house.
It's very unlikely, I fully understand that. But not entirely impossible. If there's another Great Depression, there will be such gangs. If there's a nuclear war, the crazed people from big cities will also be cleaning out everything in vicinity. I'm far enough to have a chance to stand, but not enough to be fully safe. And when an emergency has already happened, I won't have a chance to prepare. So I do what I can while I can. It's not so hard to be prepared, and if I don't do it, I might regret it later. Plus, I just feel better knowing that I'm ready for the most likely emergencies.


Define "lowlife".
Junkies, outlaws, the homeless, Harlem gangs.


As should nonviolent crimes such as burglary, apparently.
Burglary IS a violent crime.

http://www.totallawyers.com/legal-articles-burglary-conviction.asp

It would be so much easier and less nerve-wracking just to shoot attackers than listen to them try to break in and hope the cops get there on time.

Armed robbery is not nonviolent,
And neither is a suicide bombing. But just as your intro, that's irrelevant to my previous post.


and if I had someone barge into my house unarmed, I might take out a kneecap after the first warning anyway. let's face it, not all of us are both ridiculously strong and bulletproof.
Good show. I bet you would feel big and strong, shooting an unarmed man after he had given up.

And you must be very happy knowing that your act would ensure that other criminals armed themselves to protect themselves from trigger-happy people in the future.

And the escalation continues...

Look, I live over here in the UK. Guns are legal, but are heavily restricted. As a result, the vast majority of criminals are unarmed, and most crimes are not committed with guns.

If you suddenly banned guns in the US, bad things would happen, because there are enough firearms there that criminals can arm themselves easily. In the UK, that isn't true. We have few enough guns, and little enough gun crime, that one murder still crops up in the news every so often. After a year.

We simply do not need firearms for personal protection, and vastly expanding firearms rights would simply have the effect of arming those who wished to be armed --- primarily criminals --- and thus leading to a major increase in gun deaths. I don't see how it's a good idea in that case.

Sure it does.

When I give someone a gift, it's because I want that person to enjoy it. HOW he enjoys it--through using it himself, transferring it to someone else, etc.--is his business, but I am transferring the enjoyment to him particularly.

If I didn't care who got the enjoyment out of it then I'd just set it on the side of the road with a sign saying "Free - take it!"

So even though it is now his property, your rights are infringed if he cannot enjoy it?

I note you've given up on laying out these moral principles, by the way.

Armed robbery is not nonviolent, and if I had someone barge into my house unarmed, I might take out a kneecap after the first warning anyway. let's face it, not all of us are both ridiculously strong and bulletproof.

If you try that, you are being irresponsible, and deserve to have your weapons confiscated. With a handgun, there is no such thing as 'shoot to disable'. It's shoot to kill or put the gun away.

You do not draw a gun on somebody unless you are willing to follow through on killing them. In a defensive situation like that, conditions will generally be cramped, lighting will be poor, stress levels will be high, and the target will be moving. You cannot draw an accurate bead on a target the size of the knee under those conditions.

Most civilians are not trained for accurate firing under stressful combat-style situations, and your accuracy will therefore suffer accordingly. If you are drawing a gun on someone to stop them advancing, you point it at their chest, start firing, and continue firing until they fall over. That will probably get the message through to their brain that they're dead.

If you are not willing to do that to another human to protect your property, you should not own a gun for that purpose. Me? I'm not willing to do that to someone, so I don't need a gun.

And I am, to protect my home, family, friends, etc.

when i said "anyway", i meant if they didn't surrender, even though they were unarmed. I should have been more clear. i would not shoot an unarmed, surrendered man.

And practice makes closer to perfect than before. If you can't hit the knee, then it is acceptable to hit the body. They did this to themselves.

And I am, to protect my home, family, friends, etc.

when i said "anyway", i meant if they didn't surrender, even though they were unarmed.

And practice makes closer to perfect than before. If you can't hit the knee, then it is acceptable to hit the body. They did this to themselves.

You can't. You cannot reliably hit a moving target two inches in diameter, in poor light, with a handgun, while under much more stress than usual. If you are not willing to shoot to the center of mass straight away, and continue firing until they are down, you should not have drawn the gun.

I'm still not willing to do that to another human, and cannot think of a circumstance where I would be.

It would be so much easier and less nerve-wracking just to shoot attackers than listen to them try to break in and hope the cops get there on time.

why does this remind me of a joke.

an old man wakes up to a strange noise. looking out his window, he sees several punks trying to break into his tool shed. calling the police he reports the crime but is told that they have no officers available to respond at the moment.

after a moment he calls the police again and says, "about that break in. never mind, I shot those punks, you can come and pick em up at your convience."

5 minutes later two cop cars pull up and catch the punks red handed.
"I thought you said you shot them?" the officer asked the elderly gent.
"well, the dispatcher said there was no officer available," the Elderly Gent replied.

Keyword is "seems".


Obviously. If there were any absolute answers, it wouldn't even be a debate.


The idea of taking legal guns of the street is the wrong way to go about fighting crime. Yes, it will be harder for criminals to get guns, but they'll get them anyway, because they don't care about the law, otherwise they wouldn't be criminals.


That's the point - the harder it is to obtain weapons, the less they will be obtained, the less they will be prevalent, the less they will be used. If ammo is a hard commodity to come by - even - weapons will be fired less, because it actually becomes a cost.


What should be done is not to take away guns,


I disagree.


...but merely educate the masses on the proper use. A man who knows his gun, how to use it, how to hold it, and what dangers are inherent with his gun, is a very responsible man who is more beneficial to safety than harmful.

I couldn't agree less. Vault claims to know guns... and I wouldn't want him in the same room with me.

Yes, but law-abiding citizens will then have zero guns, while the criminals, although it will be harder to obtain them, will inevitably have some anyway. the people will now be more defenseless.


The people will only be 'defenceless' if they don't have an armed police force.

And your criminals will be less well armed. How is that not good?


Guns need to stay out of the hands of minors, felons, the mentally ill, and the rest of that irresponsible/excessively dangerous group, but they should be open to others.

Becuase those bad and dangerous people would never even THINK about taking guns from other people...

You can't. You cannot reliably hit a moving target two inches in diameter, in poor light, with a handgun, while under much more stress than usual. If you are not willing to shoot to the center of mass straight away, and continue firing until they are down, you should not have drawn the gun.

I'm still not willing to do that to another human, and cannot think of a circumstance where I would be.

Rape, murder, these things being done to your hypothetical children/spouse/boyfriend or girlfriend/friends/family?

and a kneecap shot is possible, just hard. And my house has good light. If they attack me outside in the dark, i certainly won't be aiming for the kneecap- I'll aim directly for the torso.

But the only person that matters is myself

What a horrible concept.
I seriously hope you dont have a gun with a philosphy base like that. I will refrain from discussing it further as I do not wish to say anything which could be construed as a personal attack, but a psychologist may be able to explain why I said that if you want to go and speak to one.
----------------------------------------------
As to the discussion about firearms in europe. It seems to me that europeans have answered numerous times that we do not want guns, and explained their reasons why (which is the title of this topic). I am at a loss to why this fact seems to be so hard to grasp.

It seems that the main reasons for having a gun is as self defence, in case a gang or a criminal with a gun tries to break into your home. It also seems that people are so paranoid of this happening that they are in disbelief that other parts of the world do not suffer from the same sort of paranoia.

It is quite simple, and has been explained many times in this topic. We (at least in my part of Britain. I cannot speak for other parts of europe.) rarely get any cases of gangs or criminals bursting in the door with guns ablaze. Why would this be? Maybe.... just maybe... its because the people who do burglaries or assaults are kids and teenagers who do not have guns. Shocking, huh? Kids without guns!! They even go to school without guns here!!
So, what is being suggested here is that everyone has access to guns, and therefore the people breaking in WILL have guns and so will the homeowners. I smell a recipe for disaster there.

Was it Rodney King who was shot in the head by a school mate who didnt like gays? A 15 year old boy shot by a 14 year old over a valentines day card? A simple punch in the mouth or a 'no, I am not gay' would have been sufficient.... but instead, 'bang bang dead.'
Drive-by shootings.... not a thing that happens here often.
Mass killings in schools and universities.... again, a very rare occurence here.
Man shoots wife and kids then turns gun on himself.... not something I see in the papers often unless it is reporting an incident in America.
And Europe has ridiculous gun laws??
We did have a recent tragic trend for kids stabbing other kids, and one incident where a gang tried to shoot a rival gang member but accidentally shot an innocent kid dead. Wow, guns are so marvellous, I really must have one..... NOT.

How many other lives will be forever changed by needless gun violence? Well... significantly fewer in europe, that is for sure.
So... how about we cease arguing that europes gun-laws are crazy, and actually start listening to why the public does not want guns freely available? I mean, do europeans seem paranoid about armed intruders? The answer is no, and if you listen you may even come to understand that our system works for us.... and therefore is not as ridiculous as it may appear to those who covet their handgun/murderstick/ranged immobiliser/deadmaker.

The cure for violent crime is not to arm the nation. That will only escalate the body count.

Becuase those bad and dangerous people would never even THINK about taking guns from other people...

i thought you were big on making it harder for people to get guns. This does that for people who shouldn't have them, while still protecting the common citizen's rights to safety and enjoyment 9and in America, the 2nd Amendment. God, i love the Bill of Rights).

The cure for violent crime is not to arm the nation. That will only escalate the body count.

See, we have Mexico and arms trafficking with heavily armed gangs

I assume you're talking about Lawrence King. if you look it up, you'll notice that many sources, including King's own father, will admit that he was addicted to tension and engaged in sexual harassment. Both boys also had troubled home lives- and both are minors, who should not have had guns in the first place.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790&GT1=43002

That's the point - the harder it is to obtain weapons, the less they will be obtained, the less they will be prevalent, the less they will be used. If ammo is a hard commodity to come by - even - weapons will be fired less, because it actually becomes a cost.
But guns and ammo can be made. Quite easily today. Should we ban CNC machines and drills too?

---


and a kneecap shot is possible, just hard.
Unlike what GnI assumes to be just a claim, I actually do know guns. And, I'm sorry to say, a kneecap shot is mostly a movie trope. It requires precision beyond that possible in a stress situation. Plus, you want low light to avoid exposing yourself. Even if you are wearing a vest or have internal solid walls and windows, you don't want the perp to see you coming.

But note that only about 10% of handgun wounds are lethal. So if you don't want to kill, but are legally allowed to, just use a pistol and fire at will.

I live my life pretty fine, paranoia doesn't bother me. I even engage in dangerous activities, such as high-power airsoft games and driving.
And?


It's very unlikely, I fully understand that. But not entirely impossible. If there's another Great Depression, there will be such gangs. If there's a nuclear war, the crazed people from big cities will also be cleaning out everything in vicinity. I'm far enough to have a chance to stand, but not enough to be fully safe. And when an emergency has already happened, I won't have a chance to prepare. So I do what I can while I can. It's not so hard to be prepared, and if I don't do it, I might regret it later. Plus, I just feel better knowing that I'm ready for the most likely emergencies.
Yeeeah...


Junkies, outlaws, the homeless, Harlem gangs.
You're painting an interesting portrait of your values here.


Burglary IS a violent crime.

http://www.totallawyers.com/legal-articles-burglary-conviction.asp
No, it is not. Burglary in and by itself is a non-violent crime. Even your link doesn't say that Florida law sees it as a violent crime - except in relation to the ACCA.

Not that it would matter if Florida law was mistaken in this case. The fact would still remain, and uncontroversially so: Burglary is a non-violent crime.

This thread has made me realize how ambivalant I am on gun control, on one hand I know I can protect myself without a weapon but I realize I feel better knowing an eldely relative is able to protect themselves should they be threatened.

Not that it would matter if Florida law was mistaken in this case. The fact would still remain, and uncontroversially so: Burglary is a non-violent crime.

You're right in that, but armed robbery is, and that's what most people would bring guns into for defense.

What a horrible concept.
I seriously hope you dont have a gun with a philosphy base like that. I will refrain from discussing it further as I do not wish to say anything which could be construed as a personal attack, but a psychologist may be able to explain why I said that if you want to go and speak to one.Please read what I was responding to, and notice the sarcasm. The philosophy of the person I was responding to glorifies the self, hence my overuse of the word 'I'. I'm arguing from the viewpoint of his own philosophy, pointing out the glaringly obvious flaw in it. Which you so aptly stated. All I'm asking is that you please take note of the (Not as obvious as I thought) sarcasm of my post.

Actually, it's quite in line with what I said.


Which you then 'prove' by posting your own words that quite clearly show it's nothing like what you claimed.

What - you think people aren't going to read your posts or something?


So you're a liberal redneck?


I'm not a redneck. I'm not even an actual 'liberal'.

I'm not even a Georgian.


Exactly. It's likely to be some junkies who needs quick money for a fix. It's not an assault team prepared to surround and attack a proper house. It's a group Everyman Joe can defend himself against.


You know that ex-Marines could become junkies, I assume?


I have no idea what you're getting at. Expected hostile intent, and overt hostile acts (breaking and entering) are sufficient reason for use of lethal force.


For you.


With me entirely. If there's a possibility that a reasonable person could believe that the intruder might cause him injury, he's justified in using any force necessary against the intruder.


I don't suppose you can link the law that says you can shoot someone in the face for even entering your house.


Not in my eyes, and not in anyone's when they're dead.


Ah. So, disagreement is only a valid concept if you survive?


Of course, I don't intend to say this to the cops.

You don't intend to admit it to anyone? Lacking the courage of your convictions?


I'll say that I thought the perp was going to kill me. He was armed, he broke in. And that's not an excuse or defense. It's justification. It proves that my act of self-defense was right.


So, you'd lie, just so you could kill someone?


He was armed, he broke in. And that's not an excuse or defense. It's justification. It proves that my act of self-defense was right.


No, it's an excuse. And shooting someone dead doesn't prove that your 'self-defence' was right.

And?
Yeeeah...
And yeah, I'm not paranoid. I merely take some basic measures to improve my safety. Measures that most people should take, if they have some time and resources to spare.


You're painting an interesting portrait of your values here.
I haven't named everyone. What does it matter? I just named a few examples of lowlifes.



Not that it would matter if Florida law was mistaken in this case. The fact would still remain, and uncontroversially so: Burglary is a non-violent crime.
The Supreme Court has upheld: Burglary is a violent felony. It creates an almost certain risk of violent confrontation.
Note that as much as pointing a knife at the homeowner is already a violent crime.

Armed and equipped people breaking into my house?


You just can't bring yourself to be consistent, can you?

One second there's an ignorant rabble. The next, they're armed and equipped.


Nope, it's not original. It's how it's done and how it should be done. We shouldn't show any weakness. Violent crime should be stopped in the harshest way possible.

Violent crime should be stopped.

That's as much as you had right.

The 'harshest way possible' mentality just perpetuates a cycle of violence. It's that kind of thinking that explains why we still HAVE violent crime.

No, it's an excuse. And shooting someone dead doesn't prove that your 'self-defence' was right.

That's total BS. If an armed stranger breaks into your house it is clear they have hostile intent,and only a true idiot could argue otherwise. you have the right to defend yourself.

As to the discussion about firearms in europe. It seems to me that europeans have answered numerous times that we do not want guns, and explained their reasons why (which is the title of this topic). I am at a loss to why this fact seems to be so hard to grasp.

It seems that the main reasons for having a gun is as self defence, in case a gang or a criminal with a gun tries to break into your home. It also seems that people are so paranoid of this happening that they are in disbelief that other parts of the world do not suffer from the same sort of paranoia.

It is quite simple, and has been explained many times in this topic. We (at least in my part of Britain. I cannot speak for other parts of europe.) rarely get any cases of gangs or criminals bursting in the door with guns ablaze. Why would this be? Maybe.... just maybe... its because the people who do burglaries or assaults are kids and teenagers who do not have guns. Shocking, huh? Kids without guns!! They even go to school without guns here!!
So, what is being suggested here is that everyone has access to guns, and therefore the people breaking in WILL have guns and so will the homeowners. I smell a recipe for disaster there.

Was it Rodney King who was shot in the head by a school mate who didnt like gays? A 15 year old boy shot by a 14 year old over a valentines day card? A simple punch in the mouth or a 'no, I am not gay' would have been sufficient.... but instead, 'bang bang dead.'
Drive-by shootings.... not a thing that happens here often.
Mass killings in schools and universities.... again, a very rare occurence here.
Man shoots wife and kids then turns gun on himself.... not something I see in the papers often unless it is reporting an incident in America.
And Europe has ridiculous gun laws??
We did have a recent tragic trend for kids stabbing other kids, and one incident where a gang tried to shoot a rival gang member but accidentally shot an innocent kid dead. Wow, guns are so marvellous, I really must have one..... NOT.

How many other lives will be forever changed by needless gun violence? Well... significantly fewer in europe, that is for sure.
So... how about we cease arguing that europes gun-laws are crazy, and actually start listening to why the public does not want guns freely available? I mean, do europeans seem paranoid about armed intruders? The answer is no, and if you listen you may even come to understand that our system works for us.... and therefore is not as ridiculous as it may appear to those who covet their handgun/murderstick/ranged immobiliser/deadmaker.

The cure for violent crime is not to arm the nation. That will only escalate the body count.
yet also Gun crimes still occure there. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ukguns)

sure UK and other nations may have less Gun related deaths in the US and other nations where Guns are not tightly regulated, but the number is not Zero.

Edit: I am not saying UK is wrong in how they handle their Gun Culture. it's their way of handling it and I doubt the same methods would work in the US.

One second there's an ignorant rabble. The next, they're armed and equipped.
If they're unarmed and unequipped, they'll go away. Or try pointlessly to break in, until the cops arrest them or shoot them for resisting arrest.


The 'harshest way possible' mentality just perpetuates a cycle of violence. It's that kind of thinking that explains why we still HAVE violent crime.
It doesn't. Fortunately, we don't have necromancers raising dead gangsters so far. Once they're dead, they're gone. It's not a confrontation between equals, it's the society cleaning itself of dirt.

i thought you were big on making it harder for people to get guns. This does that for people who shouldn't have them, while still protecting the common citizen's rights to safety and enjoyment 9and in America, the 2nd Amendment. God, i love the Bill of Rights).

I prefer the idea of making it harder for criminals to get guns. What you suggest makes it a little harder than handing them out at school, I suppose. But removing public domain gun access completely would make it even harder.

Why make a half-hearted pretence?

As for Constitutional/Bill of Rights issues... that's basically a different debate. My problem with Constitutional/Bill of Rights arguments is that people use them instead of thinking.

But guns and ammo can be made. Quite easily today. Should we ban CNC machines and drills too?


Guns and ammo are not easily made.

This is another one of your bullshit claims you won't support.

I prefer the idea of making it harder for criminals to get guns. What you suggest makes it a little harder than handing them out at school, I suppose. But removing public domain gun access completely would make it even harder.

Why make a half-hearted pretence?

As for Constitutional/Bill of Rights issues... that's basically a different debate. My problem with Constitutional/Bill of Rights arguments is that people use them instead of thinking.

You mean like how Controled narcartics are not ending up in the hands of people because the fact that they are banned (zero tolerance in some states).

I'm for education on how to use handguns. many people think "POWER!!! MHUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" when they get their gun and that is where the trouble lies.

That's total BS. If an armed stranger breaks into your house it is clear they have hostile intent,and only a true idiot could argue otherwise. you have the right to defend yourself.

So, anyone who disagrees with you is an idiot?

Ad hominem is the best you've got?


If an armed stranger breaks into your house (I notice all our burglars are armed now, for the sake of discussion... our collective paranoia has escalated another notch) it is clear they have some intent... but you don't know what it is. That they are prepared to recieve violence, doesn't mean they intend it.

Guns and ammo are not easily made.

This is another one of your bullshit claims you won't support.

but you know people will try to make them and worse.. use it.

If they're unarmed and unequipped, they'll go away. Or try pointlessly to break in, until the cops arrest them or shoot them for resisting arrest.


So, you REALLY don't need a gun for defence. So all your arguments about shooting burglars are either some kind of morbid desire to hurt someone... or simple bullshit?


It doesn't. Fortunately, we don't have necromancers raising dead gangsters so far. Once they're dead, they're gone. It's not a confrontation between equals, it's the society cleaning itself of dirt.

Which is why our society has no violent crime.

Ohg wait... that's not true, is it. And nations where criminals expect they might meet firearm resistance, have far greater incidence of gun-armed intruders, because they seek a balance of power. And they're more likely to fire because they think you are. (And, of course, you've SAID you are).

There's a name for that.... escalation? Cycle of violence?

You mean like how Controled narcartics are not ending up in the hands of people because the fact that they are banned (zero tolerance in some states).

I'm for education on how to use handguns. many people think "POWER!!! MHUHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!" when they get their gun and that is where the trouble lies.

Controlled narcotics are ending up in peoples hands, at least partly, because those involved in the illegal trade have easy access to guns.

So, you REALLY don't need a gun for defence.
I DO need guns at home for defense. There's a small chance that I'll actually have to use them, since the place is low-crime and I have passive defenses, but there still is.

Also, I DO need guns for self-defense outdoors, where I don't have much in the way of passive protection.



And they're more likely to fire because they think you are. (And, of course, you've SAID you are).
Does that make a difference? They're going to kill you either way, be it with a gun in a firefight or with a knife, tied up and gagged. They don't want eyewitnesses.

With a gun, I at least stand a chance.

I don't mind, actually. I just don't think you should be presenting my arguments as something other than they were - if for no other reason than that it is a logical fallacy.

Even though I didn't present your arguments as anything other than what they were.

You didn't mention my mother. That was an illustrative example.

of a logical fallacy that you just used.

You are arguing that I am quibbling over the semantics rather than defending my argument. I'm showing you that INVENTING something for me to have said, and then me saying 'errr... I didn't SAY that' ISN'T quibbling semantics.[/quote\

Uh huh, That's nice.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle;14322054]No. It's not.

What a response.

The context was that someone made an assertion about how the only answer was to sacrifice subjective concepts for a subjective concept.
I reversed the concepts.
If you really REALLY have a bug in your diaper about it, the person that cited 'safety' wasn't me. THAT is the context.
There are no 'rights', thus - nothing to replace.


Oh please. First you say that rights are what the gov't grants in lieu of natural rights now you're saying there are NO rights?

And yes, you did claim that before you try and pull the "prove I said that BS again

There are no 'sacred' rights. That's wishful thinking to cover for the fact there's no REAL argument for rights EXCEPT as granted by the societies into which we are born/migrated.

Nothing is inherent in our existence as human beings except our existence, and that is inherent only for as long as it lasts.

If your government is elected by the population, then your rights are determined by your government at your consent. If your government is NOT elected by the population, then your rights are determined by your government at THEIR consent. Any argument for 'rights' that are 'innate', 'inherent' or 'universal' is a crock of shit.

Then you 'argue' that all rights should be given up for 'safety' (which I again cited you stating ). Since then, your whole response has consisted of 'no I didn't' and 'context'.

Are you unable to maintain a straight argument w/o changing your premises? Are you going to whine about 'context' again while still avoiding defining 'safety'?

Of course you are.

Define Safety.

Guns and ammo are not easily made.
This is another one of your bullshit claims you won't support.
Yes, they are easy to make. I have seen how it's done in a small workshop.

In prohibition countries, they regularly bust home workshops making crude guns and occasionally ammunition.

The entire mechanism and casing can be made in one go on a CNC milling machine. A short barrel can be made with a simple drilling machine. Then put it together and you've got a gun. A blowback SMG, even.

That is if you want to make it quickly and cheaply. Low-tech guns have been made centuries ago with virtually no equipment.

Guns and ammo are not easily made.

This is another one of your bullshit claims you won't support.

Ace Hardware and some basic machining tools are all it takes to make simple firearms and ammo for them. Commonly known as 'Zip Guns' or "Pipe Guns".

Will you now 'argue' the meaning of 'easy'?

Controlled narcotics are ending up in peoples hands, at least partly, because those involved in the illegal trade have easy access to guns.
This is sigworthy.


How does access to guns help those involved in the illegal trade?

Wow, the topic-drift...

Back on the original question, though...

Europe and the United States have different ways of dealing with some things-this is probably why the United States is not Europe, yes?

Notably some of the most vicious firearms ever created were drawn up in European makers' rooms for sale to police forces there. (The HK-MP5 and that submachinegun-pistol from Beretta being prime examples)

Now, this probably drops into cultural differences. I don't think I'd be feeling particularly safe with Barney Fife toting an MP-5 in public during a NON hostage situation. I'm not even particularly comfortable with the fad of AR-15-this-or-that that so many police forces have gone to in recent years-the odds of a bullet finding its way through wallboard into the neighbour's kid's crib from trigger-happy-Deputy-Dumbass is actually pretty good. A rifle bullet can travel more than a mile in free flight and come down and kill someone. (Usually by accident-which is to say, negligence, since to travel that far, the shooter wasn't sure of his backstop.)

Police tend NOT to be particularly good or careful shots. There are a few (they're termed "Special" usually-guys who do SWAT team stuff or shoot recreationally in their non-existent spare time) They're basically armed civilians with the best legal protection tax money can buy. (How else to explain forty bullets in a hot-dog-vendor, or capping a thirteen year old for holding the remote?)

But all of this is aside. The thing is, Europe is different from the United States. Culturally, ethnically, and politically...different.

What constitutes "Civil Society" between the two has some commonality, but in spite of desperate efforts to create a "Global culture", they're fundamentally NOT THE SAME.

Europeans tolerate violence from groups that would have task-forces organized to shut them down in the states. (Mo-bomb-head cartoons, anyone?) I would even suspect that what constitutes a "Violent Crime" in Europe has a different definition than in the U.S., so matching statistics is kind of an opinion game. Approaches to problems are going to be different as well.

Euros and Aussies blame guns, Yanks tend to blame Criminals-which is probably reason number one why the Death Penalty is still in the United States, but is not in Europe.

WE don't (on the whole-there are exceptions) fetishize objects to escape responsibility for actions. (The car with a big engine didn't make you speed, you sped because you wanted to. The gun didn't make you shoot, you shot because you chose to. The Knife didn't stab her twenty-six times, the guy holding the knife stabbed her twenty-six times, etc. etc.)

Fundamentally, Liberty entails risk. Choices have consequences, and the difference between a society that is founded on Liberty and one that is founded on something else, is that the society founded on Liberty accepts that there are consequences to being free that a non-free society (however benevolent or light handed) doesn't have.

Criminal gangs in the U.S. don't have as much inclination to wrap themselves in political rhetoric to cloak their crimes in acceptable clothing, and they don't have a habit of lighting off bombs. (again, there are exceptions-notably McVeigh and Nickels, who are now pushing those daisies right on up.) The killing is retail, and the criminals less bold. (Strongarm robbery is a rare thing in the U.S. because the proposed vic might be armed. From what I've been told, it's quite common in the UK and Europe wide...Can't really trust the assertion, but it smells true.)

My home is armed-that is, I have weapons that don't require great physical strength or years of intense training to use effectively. Do I expect to need them (again)? Not at this time. Were I to be in a place where access to weapons is highly restricted? Sure, I'd expect to need them. I'd also expect to be denied access to them. This is why I won't live in places like Detroit, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York, D.C. or New Orleans.

Controlled narcotics are ending up in peoples hands, at least partly, because those involved in the illegal trade have easy access to guns.

so get rid of the legal guns and you get rid of the illegal drugs. no proof that stopping legal ownership of guns = stopping all ownership of guns.

Even the UK has their share of Gun crimes and they're pretty tight when it comes to guns.

You're right in that, but armed robbery is, and that's what most people would bring guns into for defense.
And I like chocolate. Actually, most people do.

Again, it's not really relevant to any recent posts, but, like you, I just felt like sharing.

And yeah, I'm not paranoid.
Never said you were...


I haven't named everyone. What does it matter? I just named a few examples of lowlifes.
Oh nothing. Just found your inclusion of "homeless" interesting.



The Supreme Court has upheld: Burglary is a violent felony. It creates an almost certain risk of violent confrontation.
Again, since you didn't understand it the first time: In relation to the ACCA, and specifically the ACCA, it counts as a violent felony -

The question before us is whether attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, is a “violent felony” under ACCA. We hold that it is, and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

- because the definition of a violent felony in the ACCA included burglary since it involved "conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another."

Thus, what activates the ACCA is the risk of violence. And SCOTUS found that a burglary carried with it such a potential risk

But, again, that's only in relation to the ACCA. The crime itself is not categorically a violent crime. Burglary is a property crime. SCOTUS (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/05-9264.ZO.html) never suggests otherwise.

But cite the case you think supports your view. Please.

Note that as much as pointing a knife at the homeowner is already a violent crime.
Indeed. And?

In prohibition countries, they regularly bust home workshops making crude guns and occasionally ammunition.
Regularly? Good, then you shouldn't find it difficult to find me two or three recent stories about this and link us. :wink:

If they're unarmed and unequipped, they'll go away. Or try pointlessly to break in, until the cops arrest them or shoot them for resisting arrest.

Again this thread provides an interesting insight into your mind...

See, we have Mexico and arms trafficking with heavily armed gangs

I assume you're talking about Lawrence King. if you look it up, you'll notice that many sources, including King's own father, will admit that he was addicted to tension and engaged in sexual harassment. Both boys also had troubled home lives- and both are minors, who should not have had guns in the first place.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147790&GT1=43002

Thankyou, Lawrence King was the name I was trying to recall.
But you manage to make a point for me that a minor had posession of a gun, which is a surefire sign that 'someone' was irresponsible enough to let a child get hold of a LOADED firearm. (And lets not pretend that he is the only kid to have easy access to firearms)
Whatever the background of the kids, there is still no excuse or reason for shooting him dead. Wheras sexual harassment is a serious accusation, a bullet proved to completely tear apart both families and put one boy in a coffin and the other boy in incarceration well into his adult years... plus traumatise a variety of witnesses.

As I said, a punch in the mouth could have been a more appropriate solution. Or maybe reporting the harassment?

As for you having Mexico.... I understand that America would have a big problem getting rid of guns. But that is not what this topic you started was about. It was about the 'ridiculous' gun laws in europe, which I am hoping you are seeing are not as ridiculous as they may appear to you.

I DO need guns at home for defense. There's a small chance that I'll actually have to use them, since the place is low-crime and I have passive defenses, but there still is.


See - this is why people keep saying you're paranoid.

They've gone from unskilled opportunists... to hardened dogs-of-war tooled up to beseige an embassy.


Does that make a difference? They're going to kill you either way, be it with a gun in a firefight or with a knife, tied up and gagged. They don't want eyewitnesses.


Most burglaries don't end up with anyone killed.

So - I call bullshit.


With a gun, I at least stand a chance.

Your definition of 'stand a chance' is a little confusing. You've been talking about firing shots at people next door. You're not worried about 'standing a chance', you're looking for a war.

Even though I didn't present your arguments as anything other than what they were.


You absolutely did that. I notice you've done it again in this very post.


of a logical fallacy that you just used.


Yes. Exactly. It was an illustrative example (which I just used) to highlight the error you were making.

ANd I said that - at the time, and then again, later, when you questioned it. This is three times now, that I've expressly specified that it was an illustrative example, and even - what it's an example of.


What a response.


Well, the first line of a four-line response. But don't let that stop you.


Oh please. First you say that rights are what the gov't grants in lieu of natural rights now you're saying there are NO rights?

And yes, you did claim that before you try and pull the "prove I said that BS again


Actually, I can quite honestly say I didn't say what you are saying. I didn't say "rights are what the gov't grants in lieu of natural rights'... because it's not 'in lieu' of anything. There's no such thing as 'natural rights', so granting something 'in lieu' of it would be nonsensical.

There are no 'rights'. There are just the allowances our society (not our government, in most nations) grants us - either by actively embracing them, or by defending our claims to them.


Then you 'argue' that all rights should be given up for 'safety' (which I again cited you stating ). Since then, your whole response has consisted of 'no I didn't' and 'context'.

Are you unable to maintain a straight argument w/o changing your premises? Are you going to whine about 'context' again while still avoiding defining 'safety'?

Of course you are.

Define Safety.

No.

Let me make this real simple.

You are picking a fight with the wrong person. I re-arranged someone else's comment. If you REALLY want to know what 'safety' means in the context, you're asking the wrong guy.

Yes, they are easy to make. I have seen how it's done in a small workshop.

In prohibition countries, they regularly bust home workshops making crude guns and occasionally ammunition.

The entire mechanism and casing can be made in one go on a CNC milling machine. A short barrel can be made with a simple drilling machine. Then put it together and you've got a gun. A blowback SMG, even.

That is if you want to make it quickly and cheaply. Low-tech guns have been made centuries ago with virtually no equipment.

I've seen guns and ammo made, also. I've seen ammo put together in a shed in a backyard. That doesn't mean it's easy for anyone to do - even with the right machinery. It certainly doesn't mean that anything worthwhile is going to come of it, or that the risks of making and/or using such material is worthwhile.

You can build a zipgun with little more than basic tools and a workbench. You can build primitive machines like the 'sten gun' with little more. But some expertise and skill is required to make anything workable.

If you mean that an artisan could knock up a device that might be a little more effective than throwing the various components, you've got a point.

Ace Hardware and some basic machining tools are all it takes to make simple firearms and ammo for them. Commonly known as 'Zip Guns' or "Pipe Guns".

Will you now 'argue' the meaning of 'easy'?

Without engaging google... how many components will you need, to construct your zipgun, and what are they?

How does access to guns help those involved in the illegal trade?

If I thought you were asking that question seriously, I'd have to ask who you get to type your questions for you.

so get rid of the legal guns and you get rid of the illegal drugs. no proof that stopping legal ownership of guns = stopping all ownership of guns.

Even the UK has their share of Gun crimes and they're pretty tight when it comes to guns.

The UK has a tiny share of gun crime.

I wonder why that is...?

There's no proof that stopping legal ownership of guns stops all ownership of guns, but that's okay... I never said there was. But it does make it harder for everyone (criminals included... indeed, especially) to obtain them.

Without engaging google... how many components will you need, to construct your zipgun, and what are they?

HAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, that's just sad. First you say they're not 'easily made' then, when shown that they are, you go on about the definition of 'easy', just like I said you would, and a nonsensical distraction about construction.

You absolutely did that. I notice you've done it again in this very post.

Nope.

Yes. Exactly. It was an illustrative example (which I just used) to highlight the error you were making.
ANd I said that - at the time, and then again, later, when you questioned it. This is three times now, that I've expressly specified that it was an illustrative example, and even - what it's an example of.

Even though it was in no way comparable. Just another distraction.

Well, the first line of a four-line response. But don't let that stop you.

Uh huh. Sure, whatever you say.

Actually, I can quite honestly say I didn't say what you are saying. I didn't say "rights are what the gov't grants in lieu of natural rights'... because it's not 'in lieu' of anything. There's no such thing as 'natural rights', so granting something 'in lieu' of it would be nonsensical.

There are no 'rights'. There are just the allowances our society (not our government, in most nations) grants us - either by actively embracing them, or by defending our claims to them.

So what you stated earlier wasn't what you stated?

Changing your wording after the fact while playing even more word games?

You said it. I quoted it. Now you're just flat out disingenuous.

No.

Let me make this real simple.

You are picking a fight with the wrong person. I re-arranged someone else's comment. If you REALLY want to know what 'safety' means in the context, you're asking the wrong guy.

Now you're changing your claims again. You stated that you were 'arguing' that all rights should be given up for safety. You even defended that based on that I was 'misrepresenting you. Now you're claiming you were only 'rearranging someone else's comment'?

Wow.

HAHAHAHA!!!

Oh, that's just sad. First you say they're not 'easily made' then, when shown that they are, you go on about the definition of 'easy', just like I said you would, and a nonsensical distraction about construction.

So you don't know, huh?

That's because it requires some degree of expertise. Some kind of skill. Access to the right information. And the right tools. And the right materials.

Amusing is: you think 'construction' is a distraction.

I'm beginning to wonder if you understood the original claim. It wasn't that guns were easy to fire, target, use, or easy on the eye. It was that they were easy to make. Construction isn't a distraction, it's the point.

The UK has a tiny share of gun crime.

I wonder why that is...?yes, I wonder why since the UK doesn't allow private ownership in the cities.

There's no proof that stopping legal ownership of guns stops all ownership of guns, but that's okay... I never said there was. But it does make it harder for everyone (criminals included... indeed, especially) to obtain them.

yet the criminals will get them. Do you think a criminal will think "Gee, I want/need a gun... but they're illegal so I guess there's no way to get them..." so the criminals will have guns and the citizenry?

I'm for education. people wanting any form of firearm will need to be certified. kinda like getting a drivers licence. one that can be revoked. coupled with stiffer penalties for posession without certification as well as accidental discharges of weapon (make em a little more careful when junior is in the home.)

Without engaging google... how many components will you need, to construct your zipgun, and what are they?

Four basic components.

1) barrel
2) bullet
3) pin
4) simple lever to push pin into back of bullet.

things like hand grip, safety for the shooter, firing multiple bullets and accuracy are not needed to fire a bullet.

make that bullet a shotgun shell and accuracy won't be needed at close range.

EDIT: BTW Vault 10, I disagree with your philosophy about the use of a gun. that kind of attitude towards guns and 'self-defense' is not one I agree with.

So you don't know, huh?

That's because it requires some degree of expertise. Some kind of skill. Access to the right information. And the right tools. And the right materials.

Amusing is: you think 'construction' is a distraction.

I'm beginning to wonder if you understood the original claim. It wasn't that guns were easy to fire, target, use, or easy on the eye. It was that they were easy to make. Construction isn't a distraction, it's the point.


HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

Oh, you're a riot.

I 'understand the original claim' entirely. It's your attempt to try and 'argue' that making a firearm takes knowledge that your basic street thug can't acquire.

Go ahead. Ramble on again about the definition of 'easy'.

I'm going to go ahead and put this down as a case did not do the research.

I'm going to put it down to another case of "America! Fuck yeah!"

*pulls up pants*

I got here late.... what'd I miss....?

Awww.... another gun thread?

*takes off pants* :(

Four basic components.

1) barrel
2) bullet
3) pin
4) simple lever to push pin into back of bullet.

things like hand grip, safety for the shooter, firing multiple bullets and accuracy are not needed to fire a bullet.

make that bullet a shotgun shell and accuracy won't be needed at close range.

1) pipe
2) bullet
3) nail
4) rubber band

A 'hand grip' can be a piece of wood.

Add in some simple machining tools and a trip to wal mart and crude bullets can be made as well.

But none of that is 'easy', it takes specialized knowledge to put them together.

Nope.


Yep. You added a whole 'in lieu' clause to something, and then pretended you were representing my words.


Even though it was in no way comparable. Just another distraction.


Yes, it was a distraction.

You pretended I said something. When I pointed out I hadn't said that, you accused be of semantic quibbling. I showed an example of how far from just being a semantic quibble it was, by providing a somewhat humourous exchange.

The point was to illustrate the fact that objecting to you pretending your words are MY words... is not semantic quibbling. But you completely ignore the POINT, and want to argue about how easily distracted you are.


Uh huh. Sure, whatever you say.


Here's the link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14322054&postcount=490

Here's the part of the text in question:

"No. It's not.

The context was that someone made an assertion about how the only answer was to sacrifice subjective concepts for a subjective concept.

I reversed the concepts.

If you really REALLY have a bug in your diaper about it, the person that cited 'safety' wasn't me. THAT is the context.

It's not debatable - it WAS the first line in a four-line response... and it's right there for ANYONE to see.

In all seriousness - what point do you think you're making when you make shit up?


So what you stated earlier wasn't what you stated?


I didn't state anything about 'inlieu' of anything. That's your invention. I don't feel the need to defend it.


Changing your wording after the fact while playing even more word games?


Showing you which parts of the sentence I didn't say... and explaining why... is playing word games?


You said it. I quoted it. Now you're just flat out disingenuous.


That wasn't a quote. You added parts to it.


Now you're changing your claims again. You stated that you were 'arguing' that all rights should be given up for safety.


In response to an assertion that I was stating it - which implies it's my belief. I'm not stating a belief, I'm using reversal to make an argument against someone else's flippant comment.

Here's what you said:

"No, that's not what you said. You stated that we 'should' sacrifice all rights to the alter of safety."

And here's my actual response:

"No, I argued that we should."

...and here's what it was based on:

Cat-Tribes said:

"On the other hand, we don't sacrifice all rights to the altar of safety as G_n_I argues."

...and I responded:

"I didn't argue we do... I argued we should."

...and here's the original comment that started it all:

Bluth said:

"The sanctity of individual rights is infinitely more important than safety. Nothing EVER trumps it."

and I responded:

"Safety is more important than the imagined 'sanctity of individual rights'. Nothing ever trumps it."


It's obviously a reversal.

If you REALLY have a problem, take it up with Bluth.



You even defended that based on that I was 'misrepresenting you. Now you're claiming you were only 'rearranging someone else's comment'?

Wow.

I've said that all along.

Let's look back and see, shall we?

"If you really REALLY have a bug in your diaper about it, the person that cited 'safety' wasn't me. THAT is the context."


"That's because 'safety' is not the point of the statement. Again, look to the context."


"No - you missed the point. The definition of 'safety' wasn't the important part."


" I think you're getting hot and bothered over something you've read into something I've said."


"It's not 'splitting hairs' to point out that you're misquoting my intention."


"What I'm actually saying, is that the claim we should surrender all safety for an amorphous concept, is nonsensical. It's almost as nonsensical to claim the exact reverse... but only almost."


I've been entirely consistent on this, for something like 20 pages (on my browser settings). I find it a little dishonest of you to suggest it's been even remotely otherwise.

1) pipe
2) bullet
3) nail
4) rubber band

A 'hand grip' can be a piece of wood.

Add in some simple machining tools and a trip to wal mart and crude bullets can be made as well.

But none of that is 'easy', it takes specialized knowledge to put them together.

nope. the only thing a Machining tool would be used for is Rifling the barrel. smooth bore barrels have been used (think old flintlock rifles) accuracy is for shit but again, Zip Guns (google it to see how easy it is to construct a single fire .22 gun) are not known for accuracy. in some cases, it's simpler than I thought. Simple toys available at your local convience stores can be turned into zipguns.

oh and while I haven't heard it being used in a long time... Gunpowder can be easily made in small quantities. infact, a modification of the potato gun might be possible without gunpowder.

*pulls up pants*

I got here late.... what'd I miss....?

Awww.... another gun thread?

*takes off pants* :(

o.0

sorry... did we interrupt you? :(

yet the criminals will get them. Do you think a criminal will think "Gee, I want/need a gun... but they're illegal so I guess there's no way to get them..." so the criminals will have guns and the citizenry?


But criminals don't get them, in the UK. Or rather... some do. Sometimes. But this whole idea that 'because you're in a gang, you'll have a gun', doesn't carry across the Atlantic. Don't mistake "Lock, Stock..." for a realistic interpretation of the gun-carrying proportion of London's seedy underbelly.

Yep. You added a whole 'in lieu' clause to something, and then pretended you were representing my words.
Yes, it was a distraction.
You pretended I said something. When I pointed out I hadn't said that, you accused be of semantic quibbling. I showed an example of how far from just being a semantic quibble it was, by providing a somewhat humourous exchange.
The point was to illustrate the fact that objecting to you pretending your words are MY words... is not semantic quibbling. But you completely ignore the POINT, and want to argue about how easily distracted you are.
Here's the link: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14322054&postcount=490
Here's the part of the text in question:
"No. It's not.
The context was that someone made an assertion about how the only answer was to sacrifice subjective concepts for a subjective concept.
I reversed the concepts.
If you really REALLY have a bug in your diaper about it, the person that cited 'safety' wasn't me. THAT is the context.
It's not debatable - it WAS the first line in a four-line response... and it's right there for ANYONE to see.
In all seriousness - what point do you think you're making when you make shit up?
I didn't state anything about 'inlieu' of anything. That's your invention. I don't feel the need to defend it.
Showing you which parts of the sentence I didn't say... and explaining why... is playing word games?
That wasn't a quote. You added parts to it.
In response to an assertion that I was stating it - which implies it's my belief. I'm not stating a belief, I'm using reversal to make an argument against someone else's flippant comment.
Here's what you said:
"No, that's not what you said. You stated that we 'should' sacrifice all rights to the alter of safety."
And here's my actual response:
"No, I argued that we should."
...and here's what it was based on:
Cat-Tribes said:

"On the other hand, we don't sacrifice all rights to the altar of safety as G_n_I argues."
...and I responded:
"I didn't argue we do... I argued we should."

...and here's the original comment that started it all:
Bluth said:

"The sanctity of individual rights is infinitely more important than safety. Nothing EVER trumps it."
and I responded:
"Safety is more important than the imagined 'sanctity of individual rights'. Nothing ever trumps it."
It's obviously a reversal.
If you REALLY have a problem, take it up with Bluth.
I've said that all along.
Let's look back and see, shall we?

"If you really REALLY have a bug in your diaper about it, the person that cited 'safety' wasn't me. THAT is the context."

"That's because 'safety' is not the point of the statement. Again, look to the context."

"No - you missed the point. The definition of 'safety' wasn't the important part."

" I think you're getting hot and bothered over something you've read into something I've said."

"It's not 'splitting hairs' to point out that you're misquoting my intention."

"What I'm actually saying, is that the claim we should surrender all safety for an amorphous concept, is nonsensical. It's almost as nonsensical to claim the exact reverse... but only almost."

I've been entirely consistent on this, for something like 20 pages (on my browser settings). I find it a little dishonest of you to suggest it's been even remotely otherwise.

That's an awful lot of words to use to admit that your argument was horseshit.

But criminals don't get them, in the UK. Or rather... some do. Sometimes. But this whole idea that 'because you're in a gang, you'll have a gun', doesn't carry across the Atlantic. Don't mistake "Lock, Stock..." for a realistic interpretation of the gun-carrying proportion of London's seedy underbelly.... never saw that movie. :p My viewpoints are wholly baised on the comments on these boards. people are so quick to point out that the UK has a low number of gun crimes compared to the US. yet the fact that the UK solution hasn't eliminated gun use in crimes seems ok with them.

and Vault 10's simplistic views aside... it's not that easy (tho it is easier than the UK) to get an illegal firearm in the states. I don't mind making it harder (certification) and make the penalties stiffer.

the whole problem here in the US is the attitude towards the firearm. Many gun owners are actually responsible for their firearm and take the necessary care and procedres to protect themselves and their loved ones (from accidental deaths, not just from criminals). people like Vault 10 who shoot first and shoot to kill are not a sampling of those properly trained.

That's an awful lot of words to use to admit that your argument was horseshit.

Funny.

I just finally took the time to dismantle each of your assertions, showing clearly and concisely why none of them was true... and your entire response is to fail to engage ANY of those points (which is logical - you CAN'T defend any of them) and claim, instead, that I was wrong.

With a page of evidence showing I'm right.

That kind of 'funny'... not the humourous kind.

nope. the only thing a Machining tool would be used for is Rifling the barrel. smooth bore barrels have been used (think old flintlock rifles) accuracy is for shit but again, Zip Guns (google it to see how easy it is to construct a single fire .22 gun) are not known for accuracy. in some cases, it's simpler than I thought. Simple toys available at your local convience stores can be turned into zipguns.

Sure. I meant tools for making bullets and casings.

Funny.

I just finally took the time to dismantle each of your assertions, showing clearly and concisely why none of them was true... and your entire response is to fail to engage ANY of those points (which is logical - you CAN'T defend any of them) and claim, instead, that I was wrong.

With a page of evidence showing I'm right.

That kind of 'funny'... not the humourous kind.

No, that was a page of 'evidence' showing how you've changed your claims and dodged around defending your 'arguments'.

A long winded equivalent of 'nuh uh'.

That would be more 'pathetic' than 'funny'.

... never saw that movie. :p My viewpoints are wholly baised on the comments on these boards. people are so quick to point out that the UK has a low number of gun crimes compared to the US. yet the fact that the UK solution hasn't eliminated gun use in crimes seems ok with them.

and Vault 10's simplistic views aside... it's not that easy (tho it is easier than the UK) to get an illegal firearm in the states. I don't mind making it harder (certification) and make the penalties stiffer.

the whole problem here in the US is the attitude towards the firearm. Many gun owners are actually responsible for their firearm and take the necessary care and procedres to protect themselves and their loved ones (from accidental deaths, not just from criminals). people like Vault 10 who shoot first and shoot to kill are not a sampling of those properly trained.

It's not that great a movie, you didn't miss much.

England's negative gun laws haven't completely removed guns and gun-crime, but those factors are both drastically reduced in comparison with somewhere like - for example - the US.

Are we seriously going to argue that - with taking the lethal firepower out of the hands of criminals - anything less than 100% is a failure?

The UK has about a fifth the population of the US. What does the guncrime statistic look like? A fifth?

Or is there something to be said for the gun laws, even if they're NOT 100%?

What's so wrong with private citizens having nuclear weapons? If North Korea can get them, you know it won't be long before your neighborhood burglar has one, and then your AK-47 looks like a dull pencil.

Sure. I meant tools for making bullets and casings.

ah. realized that. I edited to say that one can modify a potato gun to fire something a little more deadly than a spud. :tongue:

have you seen British police women? I know what I'm reaching for first if I'm woken in the night (LG may also understand this)

I got told off today for my wondering eyes :(


Pics or it never happened....

It's not that great a movie, you didn't miss much.

England's negative gun laws haven't completely removed guns and gun-crime, but those factors are both drastically reduced in comparison with somewhere like - for example - the US.

Are we seriously going to argue that - with taking the lethal firepower out of the hands of criminals - anything less than 100% is a failure?

The UK has about a fifth the population of the US. What does the guncrime statistic look like? A fifth?

Or is there something to be said for the gun laws, even if they're NOT 100%?reduce it to those UK levels (and I don't know the stats, so just saying) and people will still say UK has less gun crime. the problem isn't the laws or lack of it.

my point is that one needs to change the Citizen's attitude towards the firearm. here in the US (and other places) it's seen as a source of POWER.

now take Vault 10's gangbanger. sure they will shoot at anything because they view the gun as a 'device to have fun' [I still shudder at that thought and I DON'T EVEN OWN A GUN MYSELF.]

but those that are trained to view the gun for what it is, a dangerous tool. that would have less confrontations ending with a shootout. perhaps less shows and movies that glorify the gun battles (like Wanted... I fear those V10 gangbangers trying to make a bullet 'curve') and video games. perhaps more games that emphasise stealth, intelligence, peaceful conflict resolutions and 'not being caught' over shoot em all.

But criminals don't get them, in the UK. Or rather... some do. Sometimes. But this whole idea that 'because you're in a gang, you'll have a gun', doesn't carry across the Atlantic. Don't mistake "Lock, Stock..." for a realistic interpretation of the gun-carrying proportion of London's seedy underbelly.

Now, it's been quite some time since I saw that movie, but I seem to recall thinking that it illustrated the difficulty of actually getting your hands on guns in the UK, seeing as how the protagonists had to settle for the antiquated shotguns, the weed growers only had an air gun, and one gang of criminals had WW2 weaponry (the Bren gun).

'course, there was probably lots of handguns floating about in the movie that I just can't remember...

Now, it's been quite some time since I saw that movie, but I seem to recall thinking that it illustrated the difficulty of actually getting your hands on guns in the UK, seeing as how the protagonists had to settle for the antiquated shotguns, the weed growers only had an air gun, and one gang of criminals had WW2 weaponry (the Bren gun).

'course, there was probably lots of handguns floating about in the movie that I just can't remember...

Funny you should mention the WWII gun. I was reading about a murder that was committed by a 1915 revolver made for the British army.

Not any form of argument, just something I read. :p

sure they will shoot at anything because they view the gun as a 'device to have fun' [I still shudder at that thought and I DON'T EVEN OWN A GUN MYSELF.]I view any type of firearm as an incredibly dangerous weapon that, when used in a legal* and proper manner**, you can have fun while using.

*Yes, legal. As in, no killing other humans.
**When used for things like hunting, or target shooting.

No, that was a page of 'evidence' showing how you've changed your claims and dodged around defending your 'arguments'.

A long winded equivalent of 'nuh uh'.

That would be more 'pathetic' than 'funny'.

See - now you're just lying.

It clearly shows that - where you said I've changed my position, I haven't - in responses spread over a couple of days, and twenty pages of posts.

It clearly shows that - where you were attacking me for a comment I made, that comment was largely an artifact of your own creation, based around a meme that I didn't instigate, but responded to.

If you're not going to actually face the facts, as a wise philosopher once wrote, "bored, now".

See - now you're just lying.

It clearly shows that - where you said I've changed my position, I haven't - in responses spread over a couple of days, and twenty pages of posts.

It clearly shows that - where you were attacking me for a comment I made, that comment was largely an artifact of your own creation, based around a meme that I didn't instigate, but responded to.

If you're not going to actually face the facts, as a wise philosopher once wrote, "bored, now".

Nope. Sorry. Try again.

I called you on your subjective terminology and word games.

Nope. Sorry. Try again.

I called you on your subjective terminology and word games.

You're a liar.

Here's the proof: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14322615&postcount=566

I do not intend to address any more posts to you until you stop whatever it is you think you're doing, and address the facts.

If you won't do even that much, you've nothing worth a response, now.

I view any type of firearm as an incredibly dangerous weapon that, when used in a legal* and proper manner**, you can have fun while using.

*Yes, legal. As in, no killing other humans.
**When used for things like hunting, or target shooting.

did you read Vault 10's post?

The gun for me is a device for having fun. The rest is merely side benefits.

You can use a car responsibly and still have fun. but to consider a car or a gun as a device for having fun and the rest merely side benefits...

I do not intend to address any more posts to you until ...

Let's leave it at that, shall we, and forget about the "until". Kekibucia, you and GnI are now arguing about the way you argue the argument. You're both way off-topic. Both of you, cut it out, now.

did you read Vault 10's post? Yes, I just wanted to make my view on firearms clear.



You can use a car responsibly and still have fun. but to consider a car or a gun as a device for having fun and the rest merely side benefits...If you are not responsible, you should not own a car, much less a firearm.

Yes, I just wanted to make my view on firearms clear. mis-understood the intent. apologies. but yeah, you can have fun with your firearm but it's shouldn't be seen as a 'device to have fun'.

If you are not responsible, you should not own a car, much less a firearm.
Agreed.

mis-understood the intent. apologies. but yeah, you can have fun with your firearm but it's shouldn't be seen as a 'device to have fun'. Yes, of course. Any type of weapon should be given the proper respect it is due. It is, after all, a very permanent solution to most situations.

Regularly? Good, then you shouldn't find it difficult to find me two or three recent stories about this and link us. :wink:
Here's 194 for you.

http://english.people.com.cn/200612/16/eng20061216_333188.html

http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Guns_In_China.html

Chinese police have destroyed 194 illegal gun factories and shops in a crackdown on weapons and explosives between June and September. [2006]

In a news release to Xinhua on Friday, the Ministry of Public Security disclosed details on the three-month crackdown on explosives, guns, ammunition and forbidden knives.

Police seized 3,900 tons of explosives, 7.77 million detonators, 4.83 million meters of fuse, 178,000 guns, 638,000 mock guns, 4.74 million bullets and 2.06 million knives.

Police also shut down 482 factories and shops that illegally produced or sold explosives, cracked 12,000 cases involving guns and explosives and dealt with 66,000 people suspected of possessing explosives, guns or knives.

During the three months, explosion and gun violence cases dropped by 22.1 percent and 16.2 percent, respectively, compared with the same period of last year.

The police said they would set up a national information system on the management of explosives by the end of this year.

Read into the numbers.

3,900 tons of explosives. That's 3,900,000 kg, or 8,600,000 pounds. It's 200 trucks stuffed full of explosives. 2 large cargo trains.

178,000 guns. Enough to arm an entire army.

482 factories, including 194 gun workshops. That is almost a thousand guns each, just what they had in stock.

It's not a crackpot making a zip gun in his garage. It's an entire underground industry. And what they've busted is just the tip of the iceberg.



It's probably because China has such liberal policies toward guns, right?
Oh wait.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Guns_In_China.html
19 November 2008
A total of 381 people have been arrested and more than 1,000 websites have been shut down for advertising guns for sale on the black market, the Ministry of Public Security said yesterday. Also, about 120,000 related Web pages have been deleted, following a crackdown between August and October, it said on its website. Chinese law forbids any organization or citizen to purchase or trade in guns and ammunition.

Most burglaries don't end up with anyone killed.
Of course. What's important is that some do. I don't want to take that chance.

Or maybe where you live, burglaries happen like this?

"Good night, sir. Sorry for waking you up, but we have a burglary to commit here. Could you surrender your property?"
"Sure, just sign this list."
"Here you go, sir. May we proceed?"
"Yes, please. Just be careful with the carpets."
"Of course, sir. Could you help us with this plasma?"
"Just if you excuse me for a moment, I need to get dressed."
"No problem, sir. We'll work on the computer now. Would you like a backup of your data?"
"Yes, drives C: and F:, please."
"It will be a pleasure. Would you prefer DVDs or uploading?"
"Oh, don't bother with writing. Just upload it on our ISP's fileserver."
"It's your call, sir, but I wouldn't advise it. We have your ISP scheduled for burglary this Monday."
"Well, then let's go with DVDs."
"I'll proceed immediately, sir. Pleased to be of service."



You know, if they do, then I might actually consider taking your suggestions into account.

:(

sorry, but a Gun is not a toy. please do not handle a gun untill you no longer consider a gun as a device for having fun.

A device for having fun doesn't necessarily mean toy. My computer is a device for having fun, but it isn't a toy. My paintball markers are devices for having fun, but they're not toys. My bowling ball is a device for having fun, but it's not a toy.

But guns and ammo can be made. Quite easily today. Should we ban CNC machines and drills too?

---



Unlike what GnI assumes to be just a claim, I actually do know guns. And, I'm sorry to say, a kneecap shot is mostly a movie trope. It requires precision beyond that possible in a stress situation. Plus, you want low light to avoid exposing yourself. Even if you are wearing a vest or have internal solid walls and windows, you don't want the perp to see you coming.

But note that only about 10% of handgun wounds are lethal. So if you don't want to kill, but are legally allowed to, just use a pistol and fire at will.

You don't even need a CNC machine to build a firearm. Philip Luty wrote a book where he built an open bolt sub-machinegun with parts and tools that you could get at most stocked hardware stores.

Guns and ammo are not easily made.

This is another one of your bullshit claims you won't support.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/homemadeammo.shtml

You lose.

You don't even need a CNC machine to build a firearm. Philip Luty wrote a book where he built an open bolt sub-machinegun with parts and tools that you could get at most stocked hardware stores.
Yeah, I only mentioned CNC equipment as an example of modern technology - the ability to produce nearly any parts, quickly, with high precision, in any workshop. Make quality weapons and do it in style, not with a saw and a file.

You don't need it to make a simple pistol or SMG, of course. Only a good long barrel can be a bit tricky, but virtually all gun crimes happen within a few paces, so you all you need is a short barrel of any quality.

Starting at Andorra
Ending at Wales

nearly all of them.

Have you tried living anywhere else, or do you just believe what your internal propaganda tells you?

Hardly can you put the UK in that list. I lived there. There is more cameras on the streets of the UK than in the hands of Japanese tourists. I was shocked at this fact when I first arrived.

Hardly can you put the UK in that list. I lived there. There is more cameras on the streets of the UK than in the hands of Japanese tourists. I was shocked at this fact when I first arrived.

Personally I would rather be filmed than shot

lets say we europeans dont like to kill anyone for no use, do americans get a statisfaction of killing anyone for no use?

lets say we europeans dont like to kill anyone for no use, do americans get a statisfaction of killing anyone for no use?

We call it the "he needed killin'" defense.

yet also Gun crimes still occure there. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/ukguns)

sure UK and other nations may have less Gun related deaths in the US and other nations where Guns are not tightly regulated, but the number is not Zero.

Edit: I am not saying UK is wrong in how they handle their Gun Culture. it's their way of handling it and I doubt the same methods would work in the US.

That's 1 from a few days ago, 1 from 2 years ago. I'd say that's pretty good going.

Loose gun control = more gun related crimes. Nice and simple.

Now I'm not a European, I'm a New Zealander, but we have considerably tighter gun laws that Europe. Before you are permitted to own a semi automatic hunting or target practice rifle you are obliged to undergo a basic safety and operations test as well as a police interview. The police then interview our family and friends and are able to decline the license without giving a reason. During the interview they also inspect your house to see you have adequate safe storage facilities. You must store the bolt and ammunition separate to the rifle itself so that means you need two lockable steel cupboards. You can forget about owning an automatic or a handgun, its just not going to happen unless you have a REALLY REALLY good reason.

Just over 10% of the population have gun licenses. It is regarded as high. Despite this gun related crimes are extremely rare, you might get 1-3 gun related deaths a year (including hunting accidents and police shootings). The system works and we are much safer for it.

I might add I found it not difficult to get a license. I am not psychologically disturbed, nobody in my family is, I have no connections with crime and I'm intelligent enough to learn a few rules on safety. The process is long, but if you have a legitimate reason there is nothing stopping you.

Here's 194 for you.

http://english.people.com.cn/200612/16/eng20061216_333188.html

http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Guns_In_China.html



Read into the numbers.

3,900 tons of explosives. That's 3,900,000 kg, or 8,600,000 pounds. It's 200 trucks stuffed full of explosives. 2 large cargo trains.

178,000 guns. Enough to arm an entire army.

482 factories, including 194 gun workshops. That is almost a thousand guns each, just what they had in stock.

It's not a crackpot making a zip gun in his garage. It's an entire underground industry. And what they've busted is just the tip of the iceberg.



It's probably because China has such liberal policies toward guns, right?
Oh wait.
http://www.gunpolicy.org/Topics/Guns_In_China.html

Good show. I see I forgot to add "In Europe or in the US" since that's what would be interesting to this thread, but you responded to what I asked for. Thanks for that.

The situation in China doesn't surprise me in the slightest though.

Rape, murder, these things being done to your hypothetical children/spouse/boyfriend or girlfriend/friends/family?

and a kneecap shot is possible, just hard. And my house has good light. If they attack me outside in the dark, i certainly won't be aiming for the kneecap- I'll aim directly for the torso.

Rape, murder, etc, I would dive in and try to prevent, putting myself in the way and making time for them to escape. But I refuse, morally, to kill another human. I will sacrifice myself to defend a loved one, but will not kill.

That's total BS. If an armed stranger breaks into your house it is clear they have hostile intent,and only a true idiot could argue otherwise. you have the right to defend yourself.

But you were saying just earlier you would shoot an unarmed stranger who had broken into your house. Indeed, that was the whole premise our discussion was based on.

Good show. I see I forgot to add "In Europe or in the US" since that's what would be interesting to this thread, but you responded to what I asked for. Thanks for that.

The situation in China doesn't surprise me in the slightest though.

Note, actually, this line from his article: "During the three months, explosion and gun violence cases dropped by 22.1 percent and 16.2 percent, respectively, compared with the same period of last year." In other words, cracking down on possession of guns does in fact reduce gun violence. Who would have thought it?

I don't have time to read all 41 pages of this thread, so maybe this has been pointed out already...

1) Nobody here needs a gun for anything except things like hunting, for which they can get a license. No, you don't need one to defend yourself against criminals with guns, that's BS: you see someone with a gun, you still need to pull yours, who do you think is going to get shot first? Besides, the chances of walking into a violent situation by accident are practically zero.

2) It follows that anyone who owns a gun without a license is up to no good.

3) Having a way to stop someone who is up to no good before they actually do it is a good thing. Proving that someone intends to commit a crime, or even proving that (s)he was the one who did it, is difficult. Proving that someone carries a gun is pretty easy.

---

Oh never mind, who am I kidding. Weapons are compensation for sexual frustration. It's all because of euros not being circumcised!

Good show. I see I forgot to add "In Europe or in the US" since that's what would be interesting to this thread, but you responded to what I asked for. Thanks for that.
Well, why would they be busting illegal gun shops in US, where gun manufacturing is compleyely legal? That wouldn't make any sense.
There are certain kinds of guns that are illegal, but they are useless for criminal activities.

In most of Europe, guns are also legal to some extent, so there's similarly not very much pressure to produce them illegally. However, a quick search yields some results (http://www.learnaboutguns.com/2008/08/31/uk-criminal-jailed-for-supplying-machine-guns-to-gangs/).

Where guns are completely illegal, like in China, we have the described situation. And it's not just for some high-ranking mafioso. It's illegal guns being manufactured in the millions. Mass-produced. High-volume black market, open to anyone with a couple hundred bucks and a bit of time to ask around.

Once the guns have been invented, you can't uninvent them. And as the technology progresses, they become easier and easier to make.

No, you don't need one to defend yourself against criminals with guns,
No, we need to defend ourselves with pillows. Guns should be the privilege of criminals. Job benefits.


that's BS: you see someone with a gun, you still need to pull yours, who do you think is going to get shot first?
Yes, every street mugger is totally going to get into a shootout with anyone he sees. None of them would ever leave an armed person alone to avoid the risk.

Also, you don't need to pull the gun out, you can slowly put the hand into the pocket of your jacket and shoot through it if it comes to that.


Besides, the chances of walking into a violent situation by accident are practically zero.
So you want to say muggers do not exist? Great news!

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

We don't need them, and we don't need random people owning them.
Our lives are better, happier and safer without.

You do whatever you want over there, but I prefer my cops without guns, thanks very much.

o.0

sorry... did we interrupt you? :(

No *sigh* I guess not.

I just hate arriving to a party 38 pages late.

No, we need to defend ourselves with pillows. Guns should be the privilege of criminals. Job benefits.

Yup. Another job benefit they get is a free room, but they don't get the key for the door...

IF you need a gun to defend yourself, that means the police isn't doing their job. If you need a gun to defend yourself against the police, then either you or the idiots around you voted for the wrong person. Both things might be true to some extent in the USA, I guess. (Or perhaps you don't live in a democracy... which is indeed quite true in the USA :p )

Yes, every street mugger is totally going to get into a shootout with anyone he sees. None of them would ever leave an armed person alone to avoid the risk.

What is all this "concealed carry" business about, then? Doesn't that mean that you can't see who is armed?

Anyway, which of these scenarios do you prefer?

1) criminal points gun at you, asks for your money

2) criminal doesn't take any chances and shoots you before you have even noticed him/her, then takes your money

So you want to say muggers do not exist? Great news!

Over here in the Netherlands you're more likely to encounter an elephant than a mugger. (It's true! I have had surprise encounters with elephants, but never been mugged. And I look both weak and rich...) But seriously, anyone who believes to need a gun over here is suffering from severe paranoia.

death is probably the most serious reason for Europeans not liking guns. They have a habit of killing people.

Or maybe where you live, burglaries happen like this?

"Good night, sir. Sorry for waking you up, but we have a burglary to commit here. Could you surrender your property?"
"Sure, just sign this list."
"Here you go, sir. May we proceed?"
"Yes, please. Just be careful with the carpets."
"Of course, sir. Could you help us with this plasma?"
"Just if you excuse me for a moment, I need to get dressed."
"No problem, sir. We'll work on the computer now. Would you like a backup of your data?"
"Yes, drives C: and F:, please."
"It will be a pleasure. Would you prefer DVDs or uploading?"
"Oh, don't bother with writing. Just upload it on our ISP's fileserver."
"It's your call, sir, but I wouldn't advise it. We have your ISP scheduled for burglary this Monday."
"Well, then let's go with DVDs."
"I'll proceed immediately, sir. Pleased to be of service."


That's actually pretty funny.

Of course. What's important is that some do. I don't want to take that chance.


This is why people keep saying you sound paranoid.

Since when does the US allow all the crazies over here get guns? And if someone really is mentally unstable, it doesn't matter if he has a gun or a steak knife, he could go after someone. By imposing stricter gun laws, you're disarming someone who might be able to stop the madman before he kills someone.

You fail to see that my post, CM, in no way, makes reference to the US. There are other countries around the world that establish stern gun control laws too. The US has it's own set of laws regarding gun possession. I'm not discussing that, because this thread is NOT about the US.

What I see is that there is absolutely no problem with the gun laws that Europe has.

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/index.shtml

http://www.thehomegunsmith.com/homemadeammo.shtml

You lose.

I guess, if your definition of easy is easy IF someone else has already done the brainwork so you're working from someone elses's creation... AND you've got conveniently idiot-proof instructions... AND you don't actually have to MAKE anything, just assemble some pre-approved components... sure.

If by 'make' you mean 'not-make'... sure, it's easy.

I hate guns 'cos they kill. Simple as that.

I agree...on the most part. I do believe that anyone who wishes to purchase a gun should be evaluated, have background checks, etc. However, there should be notable exceptions. I have a personal experience that I believe will show a flaw in your plan (I do not disagree with your plan overall, no plan is perfect).

I have ADHD and anxiety. I currently take Zoloft and Concerta. Without these medications, I am merely more jumpy, inattentive, and goofy. I am not dangerous.

However, there was a time when I was dangerous, but not because of my disorders. It was because of one my old medications: Paxil.

It is now known that Paxil, when used on pre-teens and teenagers, can produce terrible results: rage issues, behavioral changes, suicidal thoughts. Unfortunately, I experienced all three, which got me in trouble(I did not harm anyone, mind you, but I did threaten someone close to me with a knife. To this day, the memory of that haunts me.)

I was placed in one of my city's hospital's teenager mental health facilities. I stayed for about a week, and they found the problem: Paxil.

Paxil was the cause of all my rage and anger issues. It had nothing to do with my actual mental stability or behavior. It was completely out of my control. Therefore, my doctors called the police, told them that my problems were not at all a cause of my mental stability (which is very healthy) or my behavior (which is quite average). The police took my run-ins with them off my criminal record, leaving me with an unblighted record.

Since then, I have not even had anything close to an outbreak of rage (Do I have a temper, yes. But I do not harm people because of it.)

Now, I do use guns (Nothing major, just a Red Ryder BB gun.) Am I too dangerous to use guns? I may have been in a mental facility, but it was due to medication I was being given, not an inherent mental problem.

I am not in any position to contest a person's right to bare arms or to say wether someone is dangerous or not. I myself used Paxil when I was a sophomore in college. I myself had a few rage attacks. But I still see no problem with European gun control laws and I still think tests should be run in those who apply to own a weapon. But I do agree, upon reading your post, that some people may be reconsidered if the inbalance is chemical (due to meds) and not mental.

On another note, it's good to know you're ok now. Paxil side-effects are, indeed, nasty. I took it for 3 years.

Meh...i have a right to bear arms...i intend to keep it....But, if Europeans dont, it doesnt really matter to me....If they want it, its up to them....

But, on a side note....anyone else think its kinda strange how the ads are tailored to the thread...like this one has a "firearms training front" ad on it....I just think thats kinda creepy....

I view any type of firearm as an incredibly dangerous weapon that, when used in a legal* and proper manner**, you can have fun while using.

*Yes, legal. As in, no killing other humans.
**When used for things like hunting, or target shooting.

I'm fairly sure that you can have fun while using it in an illegal and improper manner too :p

Maybe not everyone, but some certainly seem to...

The Swiss have very relaxed gun restrictions, I believe that Germany and Finland are similarly placed etc.

I'm going to go ahead and put this down as a case did not do the research.

Which, incidentally, is the reason why Switzerland has an extremely high gun crime rate for European standarts.

Wouldn't it be easier to defend yourself with a gun? I view gun bans the same way I would if every army in the world suddenly traded their guns in for crossbows: Awesome in theory, but a sign of technological backwardness and an extreme loss of efficiency. That being said, Crossbows are still incredibly awesome.

See, I personally would feel it to be a big step backwards if I had to live in a place where I NEEDED to defend myself with a gun, and own one in order to feel safe.
I don't at the moment.

So the business in Wales is less regulated and the taxes are lower?

How much cheaper is gasoline in Wales compared to Virginia?

How much less do I pay for the same car in Wales than I would in US?

Going by that, I'm guessing some African country might be the "most free" in your book, seeing as you usually can get cars and petrol for a song there. :rolleyes:

Maybe I'm free to move around without carrying a passport?

Actually, you can. As a member of any country in the European union, you don't need to carry a passport to travel to any other of them...

Europeans don't have as many rights. They also don't have the means to overthrow their government(s) when the need arises.

Europeans don't have as many rights. They also don't have the means to overthrow their government(s) when the need arises.

Europeans don't have as many rights? You have data to support this assertion, I presume?

Europeans don't have as many rights. They also don't have the means to overthrow their government(s) when the need arises.

Let's see...
European countries to overthrow their government in the last, oh, 50 years?

Eastern Germany
Romania
The Checz Republic
Slovakia
Poland
Latvia
Estonia
Hungary
Kroatia
Bosnia-Herzegovina
Albania
Greece
Spain
Ukraine

And I'm sure some more I can't think off right now.

North American countries? Let's see... the last 8 years, the US had to live under a president who was not elected by the majority of voters. No sign of rebellion or attempts to overthrow this particular dictatorship.

You wanna try again?

Europeans don't have as many rights? You have data to support this assertion, I presume?

I doubt it. He's not very good at numbers it would seem.

Name me a European country that has more freedom, be it personal or economic.

Sweden. You can have kids there without being made to feel as if you have committed a capital crime, the punishment for which should be death by slow starvation.

Freedom to beat up gays or freedom to scam people on the stock market are very narrow definitions of freedom. Some of us want more out of life than that. Too bad I don't speak Swedish and am not a degreed professional.

Europeans don't have as many rights. They also don't have the means to overthrow their government(s) when the need arises.I lol'd. :)

North American countries? Let's see... the last 8 years, the US had to live under a president who was not elected by the majority of voters. No sign of rebellion or attempts to overthrow this particular dictatorship.People hate the Iraq War, and some have been very...uh, shall we say, vocal about it, but we don't randomly decide to have an uprising and possibly kill millions of fellow citizens just for a few bad years of management. We just wait for their term to be up, and move on. :p

North American countries? Let's see... the last 8 years, the US had to live under a president who was not elected by the majority of voters. No sign of rebellion or attempts to overthrow this particular dictatorship.

That's not the way our election system works for Presidents. The Electoral College, not the public, elect the President. In theory the EC tends to vote along the lines of who has the majority in their respective states, but they don't have to vote that way unless state law forces them to do so.

Ostensibly the EC was set up because the Founders didn't want states with larger populations to have unfair advantages over less populous states. In practice, the number of electors per state is pegged to the number of Congressional representatives per state (i.e., if a state has two representatives it will also appoint two electors), and the number of representatives is based on population, so that argument doesn't exactly hold water.

I prefer Instant Runoff Voting myself, but it would take a constitutional amendment to make all the states do it. Meanwhile we've managed to dupe ourselves into believing the argument that real democracy in this country would be mob rule, never mind that the definition of "mob" is not static and unchanging and depends greatly on who is calling whom the "mob." Quite a few of us put on airs as being better than everyone else around us when someone from a social class higher than ours is looking down their aristocratic noses at us. And if you think the U.S. doesn't have an aristocracy, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you--and it ain't all based in Hollywood either.

People hate the Iraq War, and some have been very...uh, shall we say, vocal about it, but we don't randomly decide to have an uprising and possibly kill millions of fellow citizens just for a few bad years of management. We just wait for their term to be up, and move on. :p

So, essentially that argument about needing the guns to overthrow governments is complete bollocks, then?
You don't overthrow, you just sit back and wait? ;)

North American countries? Let's see... the last 8 years, the US had to live under a president who was not elected by the majority of voters. No sign of rebellion or attempts to overthrow this particular dictatorship.


you mean 4 years...He actually had the majority votes in 2004...and the Current President-Elect had an overwhelming majority.....

Wanna try again? :wink:

That's not the way our election system works for Presidents. The Electoral College, not the public, elect the President. In theory the EC tends to vote along the lines of who has the majority in their respective states, but they don't have to vote that way unless state law forces them to do so.

Ostensibly the EC was set up because the Founders didn't want states with larger populations to have unfair advantages over less populous states. In practice, the number of electors per state is pegged to the number of Congressional representatives per state (i.e., if a state has two representatives it will also appoint two electors), and the number of representatives is based on population, so that argument doesn't exactly hold water.

I prefer Instant Runoff Voting myself, but it would take a constitutional amendment to make all the states do it. Meanwhile we've managed to dupe ourselves into believing the argument that real democracy in this country would be mob rule, never mind that the definition of "mob" is not static and unchanging and depends greatly on who is calling whom the "mob." Quite a few of us put on airs as being better than everyone else around us when someone from a social class higher than ours is looking down their aristocratic noses at us. And if you think the U.S. doesn't have an aristocracy, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you--and it ain't all based in Hollywood either.

I'm familiar with the system, but I still think it's not very democratic.
The chances of having the individuals vote represented in government without distortion are very slim, as are the chances for a third party to make it into government.

Personally, I dislike the British electoral system for the same reason.
Good and democratic systems to me are the German and the Irish systems, where there are votes for both candidates and parties, and no votes are lost.

I'm familiar with the system, but I still think it's not very democratic.
The chances of having the individuals vote represented in government without distortion are very slim, as are the chances for a third party to make it into government.

Personally, I dislike the British electoral system for the same reason.
Good and democratic systems to me are the German and the Irish systems, where there are votes for both candidates and parties, and no votes are lost.

Well the founding fathers were greatly inspired by the Roman Republic and Cicero's writings to fix the republic's problems, hince why Americans live in an republican system of government and not an Democratic system. Also the founding fathers didn't take into an account political parties when they made the system, likely because they had all belonged to the whig party and the tories had all fled the country or died in the revolution.

So, essentially that argument about needing the guns to overthrow governments is complete bollocks, then?
You don't overthrow, you just sit back and wait? ;)

Unless someone seizes power then all bets are off. ;)

I'm familiar with the system, but I still think it's not very democratic.
The chances of having the individuals vote represented in government without distortion are very slim, as are the chances for a third party to make it into government.


The chances of a third party to make it into government would be extremely, extremely slim even under direct democracy, possibly even more so. Regardless, only 4 presidents in the last 200 years or so have not also won by popular vote.

So, essentially that argument about needing the guns to overthrow governments is complete bollocks, then?
You don't overthrow, you just sit back and wait? ;)I do not support (or take the side of) the pro-gun people on that argument. :rolleyes:
If you'd read back, you would notice that I have yet to argue that particular...fiasco. ;)

Well the founding fathers were greatly inspired by the Roman Republic and Cicero's writings to fix the republic's problems, hince why Americans live in an republican system of government and not an Democratic system. Also the founding fathers didn't take into an account political parties when they made the system, likely because they had all belonged to the whig party and the tories had all fled the country or died in the revolution.

There were parties in ancient Rome, and there were parties in the UK at the time. It was to be expected that parties would form in the US as well, wasn't it?
Also, all European countries are republics, with the exception of the constitutional monarchies.
Being a republic doesn't directly contradict running it on democratic principles.

The chances of a third party to make it into government would be extremely, extremely slim even under direct democracy, possibly even more so. Regardless, only 4 presidents in the last 200 years or so have not also won by popular vote.

Well, Ireland currently has 3 parties making up the government.
Germany usually has two.
Coalition governments are far more suited to represent the true issues the population has, as the big parties will try to please absolutely everyone and therefore are politically so watered down as to be nearly indistinguishable.

I do not support (or take the side of) the pro-gun people on that argument. :rolleyes:
If you'd read back, you would notice that I have yet to argue that particular...fiasco. ;)

Wasn't an accusation, I was just repeating the obvious to spell it out for the... shall we say, slower posters here. ;)

Well, Ireland currently has 3 parties making up the government.
Germany usually has two.

I meant in the US.

I meant in the US.

I know. As I said, it's very electoral system prevents a good representation of public views and opinions in government.

When was the last time someone got killed in a drive by knifing?

When was the last time cops knifed someone 43 times while they were going for a cell phone?

When was tha last time cops accidentally knifed some leaving a night club because there was rumored that they had a knife in the car?


Watch the following video it shows the damage assult weapons and body armor can do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXq9mNI-PQw

As fascinating as Americas election system is, what does it have to do with the topic of Europes reasons for having their opinions on firearms?

As fascinating as Americas election system is, what does it have to do with the topic of Europes reasons for having their opinions on firearms?

Well, it started out by someone claiming Europeans are unable to overthrow their governments...

To which, in turn, it had to be pointed out that the US government, though not elected by the majority of voters, wasn't overthrown in 8 years...

But feel free to just read the thread to find out the details.

As fascinating as Americas election system is, what does it have to do with the topic of Europes reasons for having their opinions on firearms?

It doesnt...But soon as someone says something about Europe and Freedom...

The argument usually gets started.......

To which, in turn, it had to be pointed out that the US government, though not elected by the majority of voters, wasn't overthrown in 8 years...


Which, again, is untrue...

For future reference...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004 .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

I know. As I said, it's very electoral system prevents a good representation of public views and opinions in government.

Depends how you look at it. Having the person elected simply by the number of people who voted for him can be perceived as unfair, since it's skewed to urbanized areas, and doesn't take into account population density and area etc... Consider the hypothetical scenario where you live in a relative peaceful country, no major issues to vote over for city folk, so hypothetical state A which is heavily populated and urbanized is voting essentially based on charisma. Hypothetical state B is a loosely populated rural state, the majority of the area being farmland, but the agricultural sector there is massively important to the whole of the country, and mismanagement of that area can have massive implications. The city folk don't really understand what is needed for the farmland etc..., so it's not an issue for them to vote over, yet this state A will be the deciding factor for it under direct democracy. Under representative democracy, state B will have an equal say, which some may find fairer.

Which, again, is untrue...

For future reference...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2004 .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_2000:

George W Bush : 50,456,002 votes 47.87%
Al Gore : 50,999,897 votes 48.38%

There were parties in ancient Rome, and there were parties in the UK at the time. It was to be expected that parties would form in the US as well, wasn't it?
Also, all European countries are republics, with the exception of the constitutional monarchies.
Being a republic doesn't directly contradict running it on democratic principles.

More a matter of reforming rather, before the revolution were two political parties, the Tories and the Whigs just like back in the UK at the time. After the war the Tories effectly no longer existed in the states. I am not sure why they didn't take it into account that another party might form but they didn't. Of course some of them like Washington felt that politcal parties were the bane of society, sowing discord and discontent among the people.

The Roman Republic didn't really truely had what we would think of as political parties they certainly weren't organized. There did exist two broad intrest groups, the arstrocracy the oldest families of which were known as the Patricans and people or the Plebs. Politicans were known as "Optimates," the best people, and polularies those who favored by the people. it was an more an matter what senator catered to what intrest group. Of course the roman also had two other assembles besides the senate, the Comitia Centuriata and Comitia Trubuta but I won't get into those as their functions were rather limited.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_2000:

George W Bush : 50,456,002 votes 47.87%
Al Gore : 50,999,897 votes 48.38%

yes...But your "8 years" is bullshit....four years later, majority votes...this past election, entirely different party, majority votes

Depends how you look at it. Having the person elected simply by the number of people who voted for him can be perceived as unfair, since it's skewed to urbanized areas, and doesn't take into account population density and area etc... Consider the hypothetical scenario where you live in a relative peaceful country, no major issues to vote over for city folk, so hypothetical state A which is heavily populated and urbanized is voting essentially based on charisma. Hypothetical state B is a loosely populated rural state, the majority of the area being farmland, but the agricultural sector there is massively important to the whole of the country, and mismanagement of that area can have massive implications. The city folk don't really understand what is needed for the farmland etc..., so it's not an issue for them to vote over, yet this state A will be the deciding factor for it under direct democracy. Under representative democracy, state B will have an equal say, which some may find fairer.


Which is why you need more than two parties, in order to represent the issues of smaller parts of the population.
To count someones vote higher as someone elses merely by merit of abode is not fair, whichever way you look at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_2000:

George W Bush : 50,456,002 votes 47.87%
Al Gore : 50,999,897 votes 48.38% That's four years, not eight years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_2000:

George W Bush : 50,456,002 votes 47.87%
Al Gore : 50,999,897 votes 48.38%

The point is that it's 4 years, not 8 years, that the US had been living under a president not elected by the majority. Regardless, the president still had near majority support, and was legally appointed, absurd to expect the population to try a futile revolution.

yes...But your "8 years" is bullshit....four years later, majority votes...this past election, entirely different party, majority votes

Let's do a little maths, shall we?

It's 2008 now, right?
So 8 years ago, which year would it have been? Riiiiiight, clever boy, 2000.
So the guy still running the US got himself into office undemocratically 8 years ago.

Let's do a little maths, shall we?

It's 2008 now, right?
So 8 years ago, which year would it have been? Riiiiiight, clever boy, 2000.
So the guy still running the US got himself into office undemocratically 8 years ago.Eight years ago, correct. He, however, had the majority in the 2004 democratic election. Unless you're also going to say that the 2004 election was not democratic. (Distasteful though I find the results of it, I do not believe that it was the same as the 2000 election.)

Which is why you need more than two parties, in order to represent the issues of smaller parts of the population.


And as I said, direct democracy will not in the least stop the US from being a two party state.


To count someones vote higher as someone elses merely by merit of abode is not fair, whichever way you look at it.

The people who vote for the president all have equal value votes, the people being elected representatives.

Let's do a little maths, shall we?

It's 2008 now, right?
So 8 years ago, which year would it have been? Riiiiiight, clever boy, 2000.
So the guy still running the US got himself into office undemocratically 8 years ago.

Yes but the problem with your little theory...clever girl....Is that Four years later, we had this other election in 2004 in which that guy got the majority of votes...So for the past four years or so we've had a president elected, democratically, by the majority of the population...

Funny how that works eh?

Which is why you need more than two parties, in order to represent the issues of smaller parts of the population.
To count someones vote higher as someone elses merely by merit of abode is not fair, whichever way you look at it.

Well, rural areas should have equal representation despite thier population density, if only because their contribution to society is higher per capita.

I say this not necessarily to be abrasive, but a functioning society can run without the vast majority of things produced by industries located in urban areas, but no country ever has been able to function without locally sourced food. And urbanites (at least in the US) are shockingly ignorant about the amount of effort, knowledge and luck that goes into successful agriculture.

Therefore giving a city-dweller an equal vote and allowing them to elect someone who knows nothing about a critical part of a country's infrastructure could well mean you end up shooting yourself in the foot.

Parallels with real life US? Time will tell.

The primary defining aspect of being human, in the philosophical sense, is the use of reason as a means to deal with other humans.
But how is going for an approach of giving people the ability to shoot intruders (instead of focusing more on giving intruders less reason to break in) rational?

Also, philosophy isn't a science, so I wouldn't consider its established findings true facts, and I don't feel obliged to accept its definitions. I prefer "raised in a human society..."

When he chose to violate the rights of another, he chose to renounce reason for violence; therefore, he renounced his own humanity.
I doubt break-in entry and theft would qualify as violence itself; violence against property, maybe, but does it justify violence against one's life? And what if the person was desperate to steal, due to circumstances that would make doing so necessary to survive, or even to help someone else survive?

It's easier to judge when you're not in their circumstances.

And so it's perfectly OK to deal with a criminal with violence; and since the violence is not being used against a human, one does not renounce his own humanity in doing so.
I wish I heard this perspective in animal rights debates more often. Anyway, even if one wouldn't renounce his (or her) own humanity in doing so, that doesn't mean one should. To me, the notion that you one is either completely renouncing humanity and all their rights if they violate any of the rights of someone else sounds like a case of seeing things in black and white.

In any case, the relevant point is that if we were to try to look at things from the criminals' perspectives, we might be able to see which kind of policies might reduce the motivations of people to commit such crimes and in turn have them committed less frequently.

I guess, if your definition of easy is easy IF someone else has already done the brainwork so you're working from someone elses's creation... AND you've got conveniently idiot-proof instructions... AND you don't actually have to MAKE anything, just assemble some pre-approved components... sure.

If by 'make' you mean 'not-make'... sure, it's easy.

Actually, you do have to make many of the components for the items on that page, or modify existing components. Cutting a lower receiver out of square tubing, an upper receiver from round tubing, bending your own springs, grinding metal for a sear or trigger spring, and soldering the magazine well into the lower receiver are required to make the SMG on that website. Sounds like making to me, and it doesn't require a full machine shop, either.

^^^Irony, no? This thread could be bad for business, lol...

Yup. Another job benefit they get is a free room, but they don't get the key for the door...
It's not job benefit, it's retirement benefit.

While on the job, they also have the key for your door. A 12 gauge one.

IF you need a gun to defend yourself, that means the police isn't doing their job.
Sorry, I have no desire to live in a police state with cameras on every corner, cops routinely strip searching everyone, and poverty due to most money going on maintaining such a police force.

And even such a police state will still have its share of crime - by corrupt cops, of course.


What is all this "concealed carry" business about, then? Doesn't that mean that you can't see who is armed?
Anyway, which of these scenarios do you prefer?
3) Criminal pulls out the gun, points it, gets shot. And that serves as deterrence to others.
Yes, such things do happen. In US.

Your scenario 2 generally doesn't, it's very rare. You know how high a priority is put on murder, so if a gang starts shooting people on the street, it gets cracked down on by FBI. It's not your local Officer Barbrady, it's an influx of extra resources. The gang is pretty much guaranteed to get busted (and promptly executed), unless it's Harlem which is sort of a reservation.
Plus to that, such a shooting creates a paranoia and mass arming of the populace.

....Watch the following video it shows the damage illegally modified full auto assault weapons and home made, steel reinforced body armor can do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXq9mNI-PQw

Fixed for accuracy (and a spelling error).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_2000:

George W Bush : 50,456,002 votes 47.87%
Al Gore : 50,999,897 votes 48.38%

From your same source:

George W Bush: 271 electoral votes
Al Gore: 266 electoral votes

That's all that matters, for the purposes of electing a president in the US.

I guess, if your definition of easy is easy IF someone else has already done the brainwork so you're working from someone elses's creation... AND you've got conveniently idiot-proof instructions...
Welcome to the XXI century.

It's exactly why it is easier to make guns today than ever before - because others have already done all the brainwork for you. And not only don't you need to do the brainwork, you don't even have to ask around or borrow a book, just search the internet.

50 years ago it took someone who at least has an idea how a gun works to make one, today it only takes someone who can type "g-u-n".

Sorry, I have no desire to live in a police state with cameras on every corner, cops routinely strip searching everyone, and poverty due to most money going on maintaining such a police force.

And even such a police state will still have its share of crime - by corrupt cops, of course.




I'm sorry, but how exactly does the police doing a good job in keeping crime down equate to a police state?

So the guy still running the US got himself into office undemocratically 8 years ago.
Ho got himself into the office just as democratically as any other president.

Just because a system is three-tier (people->colleges->president) rather than two-tier doesn't make it less democratic.

Also, one could argue that any system that involves a president is not democracy, but a representative republic, and only direct democracy is true democracy.

Welcome to the XXI century.

It's exactly why it is easier to make guns today than ever before - because others have already done all the brainwork for you. And not only don't you need to do the brainwork, you don't even have to ask around or borrow a book, just search the internet.

50 years ago it took someone who at least has an idea how a gun works to make one, today it only takes someone who can type "g-u-n".

Which is why Europe is awash with home-made guns, right?

Which is why Europe is awash with home-made guns, right?

How do you know its not? We've got three unregistered rifles in the closet....Never get used, but we have them...

I'm sorry, but how exactly does the police doing a good job in keeping crime down equate to a police state?

Because the police in this context "do a good job" by gaining private information and access to private information that is usually kept in private places. So in order for the police to "do a good job" your private conversations must be monitored and your private places must be periodically searched to insure your not up to no good.

I'm sorry, but how exactly does the police doing a good job in keeping crime down equate to a police state?
Because you aren't going to have the police eliminate the crime with one station in a ten-mile radius. You need an enormous number of cops to keep an eye on everything and everyone.


You aren't going to eliminate it even in a police state, of course, only move it to the police, but that's another part.

Because the police in this context "do a good job" by gaining private information and access to private information that is usually kept in private places. So in order for the police to "do a good job" your private conversations must be monitored and your private places must be periodically searched to insure your not up to no good.

Because you aren't going to have the police eliminate the crime with one station in a ten-mile radius. You need an enormous number of cops to keep an eye on everything and everyone.


You aren't going to eliminate it even in a police state, of course, only move it to the police, but that's another part.

Come now, you can't honestly be suggesting that the only way the police can keep crime low is to have everyone under surveillance can you? There are a multitude of ways in which the police can reduce crime without watching everyone.

Take burglery for example- A few years back several police authorities in Britain introduced a policy of sending officers door to door in neighborhoods and streets that had recently had a buglery commited. Most burgleries are commited by local people and can usually be prevented by simply being aware of your own security and acting accordingly.

Crime doesn't just pop up from the lack of guns. There are many reasons why people turn to crime and it's society's job to reduce the number of excuses people use to justify their criminality.

Come now, you can't honestly be suggesting that the only way the police can keep crime low is to have everyone under surveillance can you? There are a multitude of ways in which the police can reduce crime without watching everyone.


Without a doubt, but whats more effective in fighting crime, your measures or recording what everyone says and does and going where the police feel like when they feel like it for any reason?

Without a doubt, but whats more effective in fighting crime, your measures or recording what everyone says and does and going where the police feel like when they feel like it for any reason?

Truly addressing the excuses people use for commiting crimes?

Truly addressing the excuses people use for commiting crimes?

LMAO, good luck with that. You must be young and havnt learned the important lesson that some people are just assholes yet.

LMAO, good luck with that. You must be young and havnt learned the important lesson that some people are just assholes yet.

Yes. Yes they are, but it's foolish to think that the issue is as black and white as that. People are arseholes, all of them, but they don't all commit burglery. Of course, even if there was no reason to steal or murder people would still do it but can you honestly say that they would do so in similar quantities and proportions that they do today?

Yes. Yes they are, but it's foolish to think that the issue is as black and white as that. People are arseholes, all of them, but they don't all commit burglery. Of course, even if there was no reason to steal or murder people would still do it but can you honestly say that they would do so in similar quantities and proportions that they do today?

The question is that when they do commit crimes regardless how unlikely, do you want the State to pull out a word for word transcript of every telephone conversation that person had in last 10 years to try to solve the crime?

The question is that when they do commit crimes regardless how unlikely, do you want the State to pull out a word for word transcript of every telephone conversation that person had in last 10 years to try to solve the crime?

No. What's your point?

What do Europeans have against guns?

Well overall they have a higher quality of life, lower murder rate, and lower violent crime rate with gun regulation, so why would they change that?

Well overall they have a higher quality of life, lower murder rate, and lower violent crime rate with gun regulation, so why would they change that?

Exactly, although we also have problems with our respective murder rates and such. But it's nothing compared to the Western Hemisphere's problems in those aspects.

Well overall they have a higher quality of life, lower murder rate, and lower violent crime rate with gun regulation, so why would they change that?

and....that has to do with this thread how?...not to mention what are you comparing it too?...Individual European Countries cant be compared to the US...Smaller Geographically, Population wise, GDP wise, and World Political Presence wise...

as a poster once reprimanded me...


"its apples and oranges mate"

and....that has to do with this thread how?...not to mention what are you comparing it too?...Individual European Countries cant be compared to the US...Smaller Geographically, Population wise, GDP wise, and World Political Presence wise...

as a poster once reprimanded me...


"its apples and oranges mate"

All Luna Nostra was implying is that Europe has, all in all, a lower crime rate than that of many countries in the Western Hemisphere. Why is it that people keep going back to the US? This is not solely about the US of A.

Why, if our laws have been working perfectly the way they are, must we change them? It works, so I see no problem with it.

and....that has to do with this thread how?...not to mention what are you comparing it too?...Individual European Countries cant be compared to the US...Smaller Geographically, Population wise, GDP wise, and World Political Presence wise...

as a poster once reprimanded me...


"its apples and oranges mate"

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have!

My post responds to that. Dekho says that there should be less gun restriction in Europe and I ask in response, why would Europeans need to reduce gun regulation?

It's apples and oranges, indeed. It's an issue Americans are dealing with. Europe, for the most part, doesn't have that problem and that's what I'm alluding to.

My post responds to that. Dekho says that there should be less gun restriction in Europe and I ask in response, why would Europeans need to reduce gun regulation?

It's apples and oranges, indeed. It's an issue Americans are dealing with. Europe, for the most part, doesn't have that problem and that's what I'm alluding to.

ah...I agree then...

Like I said, I like and defend my Right to Bear Arms...But, its up to Europeans whether they want it or not...

Well overall they have a higher quality of life,
What, the majority of their population lives in large suburban houses, with routinely 2+ cars per family?
Or maybe they earn more? [I've checked, they don't.]
Or maybe the prices are lower? [US prices are among the lowest in the world for almost anything, from quality food to cars.]

What, the majority of their population lives in large suburban houses, with routinely 2+ cars per family?
Or maybe they earn more? [I've checked, they don't.]
Or maybe the prices are lower? [US prices are among the lowest in the world for almost anything, from quality food to cars.]
According to the 2008 Human Development Index, the following European countries are ranked higher than the United States:

Iceland
Norway
Ireland
Netherlands
Sweden
Luxembourg
Switzerland
France
Finland
Denmark
Austria

With the following countries within one one-hundredth of a point behind the United States

Spain
Belgium
Greece
Italy
United Kingdom
Germany

Money isn't everything.

No. What's your point?

In a Police state, that would be an acceptable procedure because privacy is not allowed for the greater good of crime solving.

Another reason Americans like their guns because it gives them a feeling right or wrong that this will prevent them from becoming victims of an Authoritarian State.(Although i believe this less since The Patriot Act as im a little disappointed how many rights Americans willingly gave up because they were scared.)

According to the 2008 Human Development Index, the following European countries are ranked higher than the United States:
Human Development Index is a measure developed by liberals and mid-level countries to quench their frustration about not living quite as well as they'd like to.


With the following countries within one one-hundredth of a point behind the United States
United Kingdom
Germany
What a disgrace that must be! To end up behind US on the index you've invented yourselves exactly to have an excuse to avoid admitting the US superiority.


Spain
Oh yeah, their development is really great, mostly manifested in oppressing the Basques and throwing subsidized tomatoes at each other.

The fact that Spain isn't deep down with Eastern Europe on that list is quite a measure of its validity in the real world.

subsidized tomatoes

Just wanted to point out that we Subsidize our farmers too...

Idk why I felt compelled to do so...But at some deep fundamental core I had too....weird...lol....

Human Development Index is a measure developed by liberals and mid-level countries to quench their frustration about not being as rich as others.



What a disgrace that must be! To end up behind US on the index you've invented yourselves exactly to have an excuse to avoid admitting the US superiority.



Oh yeah, their development is really great, mostly manifested in oppressing the Basques and throwing subsidized tomatoes at each other.

The fact that Spain isn't deep down with Eastern Europe on that list is quite a measure of its validity in the real world.

And that's why most of the world has unfavourable opinions of the United States.

I wasn't trying to play the superiority game, I was pointing out that Europe is doing just as well, if not better, with gun regulation. Stop hijacking the thread to put down other people. Troll.

Just wanted to point out that we Subsidize our farmers too...
Internal doesn't count. The difference is that the Spanish are subsidized from outside the country, with the EU money. They can't even get by on their own, without international aid.
And yet the index places them on the same level as US and UK.

Lol.

Internal doesn't count. The difference is that the Spanish are subsidized from outside the country, with the EU money. They can't even get by on their own, without international aid.
And yet the index places them on the same level as US and UK.

Lol.
The index measures life expectancy, knowledge and education, GDP per capita, and PPP per capita. But I guess those things aren't very important in comparison to how much money in subsidies your farms get. My bad.

The index measures life expectancy, knowledge and education, GDP per capita, and PPP per capita. But I guess those things aren't very important in comparison to how much money in subsidies your farms get. My bad.
The first thing about being about a developed country is not needing foreign aid. About being the ones to help the others, not the ones helped.

A country which needs foreign aid is still developing, even if good among them.


Oh, and I've got at home things made in Japan, US, UK, Germany, Korea, France, Italy, Asia (for cheapness only), and even Israel. But nothing I recall to be from Spain.
Could you tell me, what might I have at home that's Made In Spain? Or what Made In Spain product could I want, apart from olives, and why?

Oh, and I've got at home things made in Japan, US, UK, Germany, Korea, France, Italy, Asia (for cheapness only), and even Israel. But nothing I recall to be from Spain.
Could you tell me, what might I have at home that's Made In Spain? Or what Made In Spain product could I want, apart from olives, and why?

I guess you're not much of a wine person then.

I guess you're not much of a wine person then.
I mostly buy wine made in France or California. Tasted some from Spain, but it's neither better than French, nor cheaper than Californian. Well, I don't doubt they do make some good wine there too, but they do elsewhere as well.
Though that can count as a point for Spain.

Any industrial products?

Could you tell me, what might I have at home that's Made In Spain? Or what Made In Spain product could I want, apart from olives, and why?
What an incredibly stupid question. A Seat Leon perhaps? (http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/01/elisava/image/seat_leon_gt.jpg) Because of... ummm... you love cars..? Oh! I know! A Toledo steel sword (http://lh3.ggpht.com/_RiO3wKpes0Q/Rwojb8TpNEI/AAAAAAAAAI8/NXX79T8FKck/DSCF1555.JPG), because you seem to be fond of weapons..?

Well, I do love cars. The one I have now comes from Toyota City, Japan; the one I'm going to buy soon is from Stuttgart, Germany.

Both of these vehicles are known to be the (and I don't mean just "among the") most reliable, durable and well-built of their kind. Both are also among the very best at what they each is designed for (as they are kinda opposite to each other). And they're so famous that you can guess what they are just from these few words.


Now, why would I want a Seat Leon? Because beyond the toy plastic body kit, it's basically a low-end alternative to Volkswagen, possibly with a turbo slapped on.

Now, why would I want a Seat Leon? Because beyond the toy plastic body kit, it's basically a low-end alternative to Volkswagen, possibly with a turbo slapped on.I don't really care. I don't know enough about cars to compare Seat to other products out there. You asked for industrial products you could want (!). That car could be one.

Let's play some more, why don't we: quess which finger I'm holding up and why.

Well, you see, there's a reason I want a Toyota truck, it's because they're extremely reliable, good off the road, and very good when modified. There's a reason I want a Porsche, it's because they're extremely fast and fun to drive, which would be enough already, and on top of that they're durable and even practical.

There are reasons I could want a Kia, if I was short on money, it's because they're very cheap, yet good enough, and cheap to maintain as well.

But why would I possibly want a Seat? Apart from living in Spain, which I don't.

What do Europeans have against guns?

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

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?

^ The topic. Get back to it.

I'm still waiting for any of these "ridiculous anti-gun laws" to be presented to us...

What is this stupidity with the ridiculous anti-gun laws? needless to say, there should be some restrictions, but not so many as you guys have! Guns themselves are neither good nor bad: people's uses for them are. Is there anything wrong with my wanting to own a gun for target practice or hunting or in case a criminal, who will get one anyway if they really want to, attacks me or breaks into my home?
Well, hi Dekho!

I find it really hard to say what's with the ridiculous anti-gun laws in my part of Europe, but I will try. I'm sure you are totally oblivious to the fact that Finland, with some other European countries, are in the top 10 of Countries by gun ownership per capita record. Funny, isn't it? It's stupid and ridiculous they aren't the number one, two and three isn't it? Stupid Yemenis anb Iraqis pretending to be freer or richer than the Europeans!

As a Finn and a gun owner, I can say that there is nothing wrong in having a gun. Hunting is essential here, not for food nowadays, but to keep the elk population down and from the roads killing motorists. So smashing job done there by our 300.000n hunters. Unfortunately, for you, that's the only right job for the privately owned guns; killing animals (well, and target practice, of course). You'd have to be pretty thick to claim you needed guns here to protect yourself (I don'tbelieve things are so bad in the US). You'd have to be an absolute idiot to say you need guns to overthrow the government (and fight the army in the process).


Well, I seem to be rambling, but long story short; you have this siege-mentality in the US we Europeans do not share. Not even the armed Europeans such as I.

Well, hi Dekho!

I find it really hard to say what's with the ridiculous anti-gun laws in my part of Europe, but I will try. I'm sure you are totally oblivious to the fact that Finland, with some other European countries, are in the top 10 of Countries by gun ownership per capita record. Funny, isn't it? It's stupid and ridiculous they aren't the number one, two and three isn't it? Stupid Yemenis anb Iraqis pretending to be freer or richer than the Europeans!

As a Finn and a gun owner, I can say that there is nothing wrong in having a gun. Hunting is essential here, not for food nowadays, but to keep the elk population down and from the roads killing motorists. So smashing job done there by our 300.000n hunters. Unfortunately, for you, that's the only right job for the privately owned guns; killing animals (well, and target practice, of course). You'd have to be pretty thick to claim you needed guns here to protect yourself (I don'tbelieve things are so bad in the US). You'd have to be an absolute idiot to say you need guns to overthrow the government (and fight the army in the process).


Well, I seem to be rambling, but long story short; you have this siege-mentality in the US we Europeans do not share. Not even the armed Europeans such as I.

Finally, someone who's posting sense into this debacle.

The first thing about being about a developed country is not needing foreign aid. About being the ones to help the others, not the ones helped.

A country which needs foreign aid is still developing, even if good among them.


If you're talking about the European Regional Development fund then you're showing ignorance. The UK gets it that I know for certain, I suspect several other of the big countries get it also.

Off the top of my head Spain is quite into steel, so you could have some of that (if you see manufacturing as the only measure of an economy, which is a tad silly).

Santander is one of the biggest banks in Europe, if not the biggest.

If you're talking about the European Regional Development fund then you're showing ignorance. The UK gets it that I know for certain, I suspect several other of the big countries get it also.

Off the top of my head Spain is quite into steel, so you could have some of that (if you see manufacturing as the only measure of an economy, which is a tad silly).

Santander is one of the biggest banks in Europe, if not the biggest.

It's one of the biggest in Europe, with both Banco Santander and one of the branches of Banco Bilbao Bizcaia Aranxa. Banco Santander is so big, it has offices in Central and South America, Caribbean included.

I'm still waiting for any of these "ridiculous anti-gun laws" to be presented to us...

They're ridiculous if they are gun laws, silly. :D

I'm still waiting for any of these "ridiculous anti-gun laws" to be presented to us...

I just got my Colt AR-15 so ban away, then ill suddenly become a Grandfather and i dont even have kids. <hands out cigars>

I just got my Colt AR-15 so ban away, then ill suddenly become a Grandfather and i dont even have kids. <hands out cigars>

Re-banning the Colt AR-15 and Colt Sporter won't really affect me, as they're already banned in the CT AWB. But I'd rather not see another federal AWB.

Well, I do love cars. The one I have now comes from Toyota City, Japan; the one I'm going to buy soon is from Stuttgart, Germany.

Both of these vehicles are known to be the (and I don't mean just "among the") most reliable, durable and well-built of their kind. Both are also among the very best at what they each is designed for (as they are kinda opposite to each other). And they're so famous that you can guess what they are just from these few words.


Now, why would I want a Seat Leon? Because beyond the toy plastic body kit, it's basically a low-end alternative to Volkswagen, possibly with a turbo slapped on.Couldn't stand not promoting your 911, could you? :rolleyes:

Re-banning the Colt AR-15 and Colt Sporter won't really affect me, as they're already banned in the CT AWB. But I'd rather not see another federal AWB.

Im currently in Pa. Pennsylvania you can own anything and you need $30.00, 45 days and a pulse for a conceal carry pistol permit.

Im currently in Pa. Pennsylvania you can own anything and you need $30.00, 45 days and a pulse for a conceal carry pistol permit.

I've got to re-take the NRA basic pistol course. Not because I failed it last time, but because I procrastinated after I took it, and it's been almost 3 years (the course certificate is only good for a year in CT, I've been told).