Author Topic: gun control... (Read 5936 times)

Shamus · « **Reply #30 on:** April 11, 2007, 05:05:27 PM »

The last time that happened to me I just used my handy sword to dispatch the aggressor.

Firearms are really not needed.

shamus

Fishu · « **Reply #31 on:** April 11, 2007, 05:05:57 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by 68Hawk
If you think they don't have propaganda in a store near you then who's the sheep? One would do better to say, "We're under the influence of propaganda at all times, which manipulates our opinion over a wide range of political issues."

The nuke statement is just over the top absolutism.

I never denied there isn't propaganda over here.

The nuke statement was meant to go over the top to make a point that the line has to be drawn somewhere. Talk of the gun restrictions isn't necessarily an evil monster. It is not wrong for the pro-gun people to consider where the line should go; That doesn't make them anti-gun.

Quote

Taking their guns will not do that.

Once again.. I'm not calling for the UK kind of gun restrictions. Besides, in those areas the problem is something else than the guns itself. The guns however do cause the damage as a result of some other problem. Should we allow them to carry bazookas so they could sleep better at night? The line.

Anyway.. if they're already sleeping on the floors, then how did a gun help them to get on the bed?

In the UK there are reported cases of the youth wearing bulletproof vests 24/7, even at sleep. Some carry an illegal gun, but they still can't sleep well at night. What use was the gun here, again?

I'm just pointing out that some of the arguments just doesn't make sense

68Hawk · « **Reply #32 on:** April 11, 2007, 05:44:40 PM »

I agree that many of the arguments on the subject don't make sense, from both sides. I also agree that we have to keep guns and especially heavy weaponry out of the hands of criminals or people who are not responsible enough to have them.

In many violent areas where people are sleeping on the floors, the violence has been encouraged because of reactive and frankly dangerous over regulation of guns.

Quote

It is not wrong for the pro-gun people to consider where the line should go; That doesn't make them anti-gun.

You're right, and I know you were using the nuke thing as an extreme on purpose, but I think we're both getting at something you or someone else said about the root of the problem. The more we focus on hard lines and less we focus on why people want/need weapons, the more we will lose the issue. When people want to take even reasonable home defense weapons and draw lines around them (look at the D.C. case right now) then I get a little zealous, sorry.

It would be a great day when we wouldn't need our weapons to defend ourselves. Then we could all just be collectors and shooting enthusiasts.

lasersailor184 · « **Reply #33 on:** April 11, 2007, 06:18:58 PM »

This thread took a hard, but all too expected hard turn. What can you accomplish? No one is backing down.

Dago · « **Reply #34 on:** April 11, 2007, 07:25:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FrodeMk3
And the U.S. is heading the same way.

No, just Commiefornia is heading that way, the other 49 states are not overly infested with girlymen and liberals.

FrodeMk3 · « **Reply #35 on:** April 11, 2007, 10:49:08 PM »

Dago quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
And the U.S. is heading the same way.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, just Commiefornia is heading that way, the other 49 states are not overly infested with girlymen and liberals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But Dago, The U.S. Government did nothing when an individual state passed laws that severely infringed on the Bill of Rights, as laid down in the U.S. Constitution.

Now, to me, that means one of two things: Either our government is too weak, or scared, to put a hand up to one single state; Or, They want that themselves, for the other 49.

Bluedog · « **Reply #36 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:02:07 AM »

Who decides who does and doesnt get a gun?
The individual themselves through their past actions mostly.
If you have a criminal record, you wont get one legally,if you have a psychiatric history, you wont get one legally.
If you are not a member of a shooting club, or do not have the written permission of a property owner to shoot on their land, you will not get a firearm legally.( if you yourself are a land owner, it's pretty much a given....farmers need guns.)

Pretty much, if you can show that you are responsible, not a criminal or insane, and have somewhere safe to use the firearm, you can get one without any drama.

If you have a lifelong paper trail of Ritalin prescriptions, a grevious bodily harm charge from that night you got realy wasted and fought with your girlfriend's ex, you live in a city and the only experience you have with weapons is playing Counter Strike, you may find it somewhat difficult to convince the licencing officer that your need/desire for a firearm is legitimate.
Same bloke without all the history and a letter from his mate who owns a thousand acres in the bush who wants to go on a hunting weekend would have very little problem.

Semi and full auto rifles were banned, yes, but can you give me an example of a situation were either of those would be the only suitable choice of weapon, a situation that cannot be dealt with equally as well with a bolt action or a lever action?
About the only one I can think of is a firefight against men armed with military weapons.

It's just like a drivers licence or car registration.....you have to show you are competant and can operate the equipment safely and effectively before they will let you drive around the streets, why should an object designed specifically to kill be any differant?
You have to register your car, why not your gun?
You need a licence and training to drive, why not to shoot?

Bottom line is, guns are NOT BANNED in Australia, if you need one, you can get one.
If you want one to threaten your drug dealer with, it may be a bit more difficult.

By the way, I am pro-gun, allways have been, I own several and have since I was 12, I have allso allways had a licence to own them, and have been trained in their safe and effective use.
I was overcompensated for the guns I had to hand in, and have never had, or even heard of anyone having the police or feds (Lazs' Alphabet Ninjas....love that term ) hassle them or search their home for illegal firearms.
As Fishu said, just because I think gun control is a good idea, doesnt make me anti-gun.

Bluedog · « **Reply #37 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:13:24 AM »

PS allways been curious...........why exactly is it possible to kill a zombie with a headshot? Arent they allready dead? What differance will a bit more of a hole make?

Bluedog · « **Reply #38 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:33:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Warspawn
For the time period of 1997-1998, assaults and armed robberies increased in all Australian states. Armed robberies increased from 42% of all robberies in 1997 to 46% in 1998. The number of total violent crimes and the numbers of all individual categories of violent crime increased. In addition, unlawful entries rose 3.3% from 421,569 in 1997 to 435,670 in 1998.

The violent crime statistics shown below were retrieved on March 27,
2000, from the Australia Bureau of Statistics website:

VIOLENT CRIME 1997 1998 TREND

Attempted Murder 318 382 +20.1%

Manslaughter 39 49 +25.6%

Assault 124,500 132,967 +6.8%

Sexual Assault 14,353 14,568 +1.5%

Kidnaping/abduction 562 662 +17.8%

Armed Robbery 9,054 10,850 +19.8%

Unarmed Robbery 12,251 12,928 +5.5%

New Zealand currently has a much lower homicide and violent crime incident rate per capita than Australia; it also has a much more relaxed firearm policy.

[/i]

Fair enough.
But I'm a bit confused....which one of those is a 300% increase?
Hell, add 'em all together and you still dont get 300%.
Looked like a good fact though, added much needed grunt to the whole argument, you know, shock and awe sort of stuff..... pity it's not true.

The most common form of violent crime here is commited with fists, feet and teeth, with the occasional knife, broken bottle, pool cue, cricket bat, big stick or fence pailing thrown in.
The reason for that is that the bad guys cant afford the extortionate price of illegal guns, and cant get their hands on the nice cheap legal ones.

A far more interesting and relevant statistic would be the number of violent crimes committed with a firearm....betya next weeks pay cheque that one has dropped.
I garuntee the statistics for violent crimes committed with a firearm of either semi-auto or full-auto configuration has dropped dramatically.

Warspawn · « **Reply #39 on:** April 12, 2007, 02:45:53 AM »

I think the 300% came from Victoria. They went from 6 firearm homicides to 19 or something. It was in that police officer's letter:

Quote

From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.
Hi Yanks,

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.

The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!). In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

Heh; the letter sounds much more sensational with a 300% figure rather than saying the killings went from 6 to 19 or whatever it was. I'd rather just accept that grabbing all the law abiding citizen's firearms resulted in a dramatic increase in crime and leave it at that...

lazs2 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 12, 2007, 08:38:02 AM »

fishu.. I find it funny that the people who think that the entire might of the US is incapable of winning a war against a few thousand terrorists with road bombs and ak's and RPG's think that the same army could beat 10-80 million armed citizens.

so what guns should I be allowed to own?

bluedog says that in australia.. I can own anything with a simple little test... someone simply decides if my "needs" are enough. If I get mugged or robbed on the street well... I will just have to suck it up tho cause.... no one needs to carry a concealed handgun.

he feels that "good" gun laws would be ones that removed 9 out of 10 of my firearms from my collection.

Guns like my WWII garand and kimber 1911....My .22 caliber target pistols (why that is I have no idea)

So what guns are the problem? What guns being removed from society will make everyone safer?

How will taking concealed carry holders off the street make people safer?

How many lives will be saved if every WWII garand was melted down?

Forget feelings... I ask fishu and bluedog what are "sensible gun laws" and what gun law has ever reduced crime?

And... what do you say to a person who wants to carry a firearm on the street but is denied and then is robbed, assaulted or worse? Tough? It is for the good? what good? what did the law accomplish?

Who will protect you if you won't protect yourself?

lazs

Entr0py · « **Reply #41 on:** April 12, 2007, 09:02:52 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm
I thought gun control was hitting your target.

Gun control means using both hands

Fishu · « **Reply #42 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:06:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
fishu.. I find it funny that the people who think that the entire might of the US is incapable of winning a war against a few thousand terrorists with road bombs and ak's and RPG's think that the same army could beat 10-80 million armed citizens.

To think of it, Saddam didn't want the civilians to own weapons, but after the second gulf war everyone could get a weapon. Perhaps the most important factor here is that they have a working supply - They're supplied with weapons, ammunition, explosives and other usable material. Without a constant supply the resistance would've probably succumbed by now.

What good is a gun without ammo? What good is a gun that is lost to the occupation forces? In a prolonged conflict you need to get more of everything.

68Hawk · « **Reply #43 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:31:44 PM »

Fishu,

What you're getting at is T.E. Lawrence's principle that insurgency can only succeed with the active support of a sizable portion of the civilian population.

Unfortunately we didn't learn that from him in WWI, didn't learn from Ho in WWII (but did kind of in France), didn't learn from the bay of pigs, didn't learn from Ho again in Vietnam, didn't learn from the Russians in Afghanistan the first time.

Still aren't learning now.

Any insurgency needs ongoing support. Asymmetrical warfare requires a base, in this case not military but social, among the people.

Red Dawn is a great movie, but it's totally unrealistic, unless those kids were hopng back to town every two weeks for provisions, which they weren't.

Such is the importance of the Ho Chi Min trail, and why it was run through Cambodia.

The infrastructure for a revolution just doesn't exist in the US today, even if the political situation were so far gone that a revolution would be necessary. Thats probably a good thing, as the making of revolution truly is a messy business.

john9001 · « **Reply #44 on:** April 12, 2007, 01:33:00 PM »

"occupation forces?", you mean the army of liberation (US/Britain) don't you?