You don't NEED a gun simplified.

[BnZs]

Two Viking chieftans once got into a dispute, and having no other weapons, beat each other to death with the bitsand bridles from their horses.

This is what disturbs me the most about certain arguments from the gun grabbers...this animistic belief that the gun makes a non-killer into a killer. MUCH more ominous though is the reverse corollary, the idea that the lack of a gun would make a killer into a peaceable citizen.

[FLOTSOM]

Guns are as responsible for killing people as SPOONS are responsible for making Rosie O'Donnell FAT!

For those that think the Police are there to protect you, think again. The Police are there to help keep order and will show up after a crime has been committed to investigate.

Shuffler i understand your point, but i disagree that police, if given the choice, will stand aside and do nothing to protect someone from a crime when given the preemptive chance.

unfortunately we do not live in the age of being able to tell the future and know in advance where and when someone was going to commit a crime of violence against an innocent person. so to imply that the police are anything less than the one person that would sacrife their life in defence of an innocent is degrading and insulting to the many police who have ever been killed or wounded in the line of duty.

a criminal always has the first move advantage, because until he makes that first move he is not a criminal. so that always leaves the police in the defencive position of playing catch up and follow behind.

i am not disputing the fact that the police are generally there only after the fact to clean up the mess and try to put the pieces together, but to imply that it is this why because the police have some agenda that intentionally prevents them from being there to stop a crime before it happens is unfair to them and the bravery they show on behalf of the general public everyday they show up for work.

i know my parents are safe at night because the police voluntarily exist to sacrifice themselves to protect them. the police, as people, will always have my respect and admiration. the laws and the law makers are those that truely deserve our disdain and disregard not those, who with tied hands, try to uphold those laws.

FLOTSOM

[Vulcan]

This is what disturbs me the most about certain arguments from the gun grabbers...this animistic belief that the gun makes a non-killer into a killer. MUCH more ominous though is the reverse corollary, the idea that the lack of a gun would make a killer into a peaceable citizen.

How about a point of view from someone sitting outside the USA: you guys are nuts. Yes I think you need guns because of the state of gun crime in your country (ironic isn't it, you need guns because of the gun crime). Stats kicking around indicate gun ownership in the USA is about 4x that of NZ, but you're 29x as likely to die from a crime committed with a gun in the USA as compared to NZ. What's the big difference? NZ has stricter laws around handguns (its not hard to get a license enabling you to buy rifles/shotguns).

So the stats say the USA is suffering because of the availability of handguns, so the 'gun grabbers' have a point. Though I'll point out I don't think banning handguns in the USA is the fix, there's simply to many in the hands of the criminals for that to be viable.

[Hornet33]

Actualy those of us in the US for the most part don't care what the rest of the world thinks about our gun laws. It's an internal matter for us to deal with.

There are those of us that believe in the Consitution of our country and that the 2nd Amendment gives us the right to be armed if we CHOOSE to be armed. Then there are those that think they have the right to make that choice for us, and THAT is what gives us the most grief. Freedom is ALL about being abe to make our own CHOICES and then live with them.

Laws that are passed for "our own good" are simply a way for those in power to excert more control over our freedom of choice.

Ultimately being armed allows those of us that choose to excercise our freedoms the means to prevent others from taking away our freedoms by force, and ANY limit to that basic freedom as outlined by the 2nd Amendent is un consitutional in my book, and I will not follow nor obey any "laws" that violate the Constitution. Not where my rights are concerned.

[BnZs]

How about a point of view from someone sitting outside the USA: you guys are nuts. Yes I think you need guns because of the state of gun crime in your country (ironic isn't it, you need guns because of the gun crime). Stats kicking around indicate gun ownership in the USA is about 4x that of NZ, but you're 29x as likely to die from a crime committed with a gun in the USA as compared to NZ. What's the big difference? NZ has stricter laws around handguns (its not hard to get a license enabling you to buy rifles/shotguns).

Different population make-up is most of it.

For instance, people of Japanese descent commit almost the same number of violent crimes in gun-free Japan and the gun-rich United States.

Furthermore, we don't just need guns to defend against gun violence. In a hypothetical society magically free of guns, the criminal has the natural advantage of the predator. He chooses his victim, time, place. What gives a housewife a fighting chance against a rapist with a steak-knife, or you a chance against a group of thugs with 2x4s? It sure the hell ain't a self-defense course from the YMCA. The personal firearm is the only weapon that potentially makes the carefully chosen victim as dangerous to the criminal as the criminal is to him or her.

Another thing you may not realize is that some of us are not committed to a "safer at all costs mindset". (You can imagine how disgruntled we have been since 9/11.) There is a (small) chance I will die from a gunshot wound delivered by a criminal. There is a much greater chance I will die in an automobile accident, swimming pool accident, or from medical malpractice. I live near a general aviation airport. There is a chance that one day a Cessna will come through my roof. Yet remarkably, I haven't erected any "spite poles" to create an "airplane free" zone over my house. Point being, if you give people a freedom, you are accepting that some people will use it badly. You either see freedom as an end unto itself or there is no limit on what can be done for the "common good".

Furthermore, I have seen my friends in the re-enactment community in the former British empire become chagrined as the attentions of those who have made guns virtually verboten have been turned to such things as swords and kitchen knives. Turns out that a member of a gang made up immigrant Southeast Asians in Australia cut off another gang-banger's hand with a cheap repro sword. OBVIOUSLY according to the prevailing mentality, that means it must be made difficult, expensive, or outright impossible for people to own sharp swords. Which are of course used by most to cut straw mats and what have you.

That is the thing about the "control freaks"...when X legislation fails to deliver utopia, they always assume the solution is more legislation. Negative feedback loop.

[DMBEAR]

How about a point of view from someone sitting outside the USA: you guys are nuts. Yes I think you need guns because of the state of gun crime in your country (ironic isn't it, you need guns because of the gun crime). Stats kicking around indicate gun ownership in the USA is about 4x that of NZ, but you're 29x as likely to die from a crime committed with a gun in the USA as compared to NZ. What's the big difference? NZ has stricter laws around handguns (its not hard to get a license enabling you to buy rifles/shotguns).

Well done.  Call us nuts.

So the stats say the USA is suffering because of the availability of handguns, so the 'gun grabbers' have a point. Though I'll point out I don't think banning handguns in the USA is the fix, there's simply to many in the hands of the criminals for that to be viable.

Are we suffering because the availability of Handguns?  Where are the stats that prove that violent crimes would not increase if law abiding citizens were not armed?

In reality, I'll take just the facts...

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

End of argument. 

Btw...you might try this site. http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html

[FLOTSOM]

Vulcan i am sure that you live in peace and harmony on your little island(s) with a population of just under 4.5 million.

unfortunately here in America, with a population almost 80 times that of your island and consisting of over 300 million people of mixed ancestry values and beliefs, things are not as simple as in your home.

we have the right to bear arms because here, unlike in your country, our ancestors chose to take their rights and liberties back from those who would dictate terms of existence to them. they in their wisdom granted all future generations the right to keep and bear arms as protection against any future government becoming tyrannical or oppressive towards our population.

now unfortunately some people think that the use of these weapons against other citizens of the populace in acts of violence is a perfectly acceptable form of behavior. but i ask you this, should the rest of the citizenry surrender their rights because of this minority of miscreants? should the citizenry disarm and surrender its right to self protection because those few that chose to abuse the weapons that that very right allows them access to? or because those who live in a tiny population in the very corners of the world choose to judge us by the standards of their tiny population?

when was the last time your population felt the hand of tyrants that would smother and bleed the life from your people? when was the last time your people had to fight to break the chains of ownership that another nation would shackle you with? or would you have us be subjects to another and pledging to a queen that has never earned the right to command us?

but isn't that apart of your national heritage? don't you still pledge your allegiance to England and its queen? although that allegiance is merely symbolic in nature, it is a pledge of subjugation none the less.

as Americans we bend a knee nor bow our heads to no one. as Americans we need show no allegiance or respect to any figure of authority unless we as individuals chose to. that includes our president, if he doesn't earn my respect he has no right to receive it.

those without a means to protect themselves will always be the victims of those that chose to break the law. this unfortunately is the way man has been since the beginning of time. to blame the guns is simple minded at best. to remove the rights of the lawful because others chose to break the law is disgusting.

hell we still allow Muslims to fly on commercial airliners don't we? or should we punish them all and strip them of their rights as people because of the horrible actions and abuses of a few?

FLOTSOM

[FLOTSOM]

Different population make-up is most of it.

For instance, people of Japanese descent commit almost the same number of violent crimes in gun-free Japan and the gun-rich United States.

Furthermore, we don't just need guns to defend against gun violence. In a hypothetical society magically free of guns, the criminal has the natural advantage of the predator. He chooses his victim, time, place. What gives a housewife a fighting chance against a rapist with a steak-knife, or you a chance against a group of thugs with 2x4s? It sure the hell ain't a self-defense course from the YMCA. The personal firearm is the only weapon that potentially makes the carefully chosen victim as dangerous to the criminal as the criminal is to him or her.

Another thing you may not realize is that some of us are not committed to a "safer at all costs mindset". (You can imagine how disgruntled we have been since 9/11.) There is a (small) chance I will die from a gunshot wound delivered by a criminal. There is a much greater chance I will die in an automobile accident, swimming pool accident, or from medical malpractice. I live near a general aviation airport. There is a chance that one day a Cessna will come through my roof. Yet remarkably, I haven't erected any "spite poles" to create an "airplane free" zone over my house. Point being, if you give people a freedom, you are accepting that some people will use it badly. You either see freedom as an end unto itself or there is no limit on what can be done for the "common good".

Furthermore, I have seen my friends in the re-enactment community in the former British empire become chagrined as the attentions of those who have made guns virtually verboten have been turned to such things as swords and kitchen knives. Turns out that a member of a gang made up immigrant Southeast Asians in Australia cut off another gang-banger's hand with a cheap repro sword. OBVIOUSLY according to the prevailing mentality, that means it must be made difficult, expensive, or outright impossible for people to own sharp swords. Which are of course used by most to cut straw mats and what have you.

That is the thing about the "control freaks"...when X legislation fails to deliver utopia, they always assume the solution is more legislation. Negative feedback loop.

<SALUTE> BnZ very well said!

[BnZs]

hell we still allow Muslims to fly on commercial airliners don't we? or should we punish them all and strip them of their rights as people because of the horrible actions and abuses of a few?

FLOTSOM

Quoted for truth. Every tyrannical imposition in the history of man has been justified initially on some basis that makes it seem ethical and necessary.

After all, most people did not accept the burning of witches or heretics because they were unsociable old hags or threats to the established power of the church. They accepted because they sincerely believed such acts were "protecting society" from Black magick and Divine disfavor.

[Vulcan]

blah blah...

but isn't that apart of your national heritage? don't you still pledge your allegiance to England and its queen? although that allegiance is merely symbolic in nature, it is a pledge of subjugation none the less.

as Americans we bend a knee nor bow our heads to no one. as Americans we need show no allegiance or respect to any figure of authority unless we as individuals chose to. that includes our president, if he doesn't earn my respect he has no right to receive it.

..blah blah

No we don't pledge allegiance to England and the Queen. As for the rest... bollocks, my rifle has a suppressor on it, legal, didn't have to fill out any forms, pay any special 'tax'. Can you do the same legally? Nope didn't think so, so much for not bending your knees

I'm not anti-gun, just merely pointing out your pro-gun argument is flawed and there are better ways to put it.

[ariansworld]

That reminds me, I need to send in my NRA form and get my FREE rosewood knife!

I looked at their website, I will definantly be joining soon.  I like the Hearing aids plan.  I currently own Oticon hearing aids and they are expensive $1000 for the set that I have.   So that plan would benefit me a lot when my current pair kicks the bucket.


Arian

[FLOTSOM]

No we don't pledge allegiance to England and the Queen. As for the rest... bollocks, my rifle has a suppressor on it, legal, didn't have to fill out any forms, pay any special 'tax'. Can you do the same legally? Nope didn't think so, so much for not bending your knees

I'm not anti-gun, just merely pointing out your pro-gun argument is flawed and there are better ways to put it.

"Elizabeth II, as the Queen of New Zealand, is the Head of State and, in her absence, is represented by a non-partisan Governor-General. She has no real political influence, and her position is essentially symbolic."   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand

if she is your queen then you bend the knee when your told to.

you are free because you can mail order a sound suppressor for your rifle? can you carry it concealed, besides putting it in a suitcase that is? and if you had ever fired a rifle with a suppressor on it you would realize that unless it is a small (almost pistol caliber) round then even with the suppressor its loud enough to easily hear from a distance.

suppressors were intially out lawed in the US because they were as likely to blow up in the face of the person firing it as it was to shoot straight. the laws banning them were continued when improvements were made because if you are firing a weapon in a manner that is intended to be stealthy and hidden then your intentions cannot be legal. if you break into my house and i shoot you in the face then i shouldn't mind that the neighbors hear the shot. but at least as an American we have the right to own not only your rifle, but 20 hidden hand guns as well.

i dont see how shooting you loudly is bending a knee but if it makes you feel better then "LONG LIVE THE 45 CALIBER"

besides if i press the muzzle of a hand gun tightly against someones cranium, then i dont need a sound suppressor.  

FLOTSOM

[AKHog]

The first argument gun defenders go to is the 2nd amendment. I think the 2nd amendment is outdated and misused. It was written as an attempt to keep the citizens well armed against a tyrannical government. That is, the government is here to protect the people, but the people have the right to protect themselves from the government. I'm sorry but owning a few hand guns just isn't protection from the government. The US military is so strong and has access to so much firepower that it would make any armed militia just look silly. If we were really concerned with the 2nd amendment in its original intent, we would be arming ourselves with tanks and war planes.

Another argument will be that statistics show legal gun owners committing very few gun related crimes, but the bottom line is there are a lot of criminals out there that have guns too, that are committing crimes... where do you think they got all of these guns? Hint: they were legal bought/owned at some point. There is simply no arguing that taking away guns from everyone will make it a lot harder for criminals to get their hands on them.

The old stand by argument gun defenders turn to is using a gun as home defense. However there are some interesting statistics, one says for every time a gun in the home was used in a self-defense or legally justifiable shooting, there were four unintentional shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides, and 11 attempted or completed suicides (Kellermann, 1998). Another stat says regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and suicide in the home (Dahlberg, Ikeda and Kresnow, 2004). A short barreled shotgun is THE best home defense weapon, arguing for the legality of other weapons for home defense is just stupid.

I'm all for gun rights, I own several hand guns, shotguns and rifles, and love collecting and shooting them, I'm even looking at buying a AR-15 soon. I'm just tired of seeing all the same arguments from 'our' side. Honestly these types of arguments make American gun owners in general look like a bunch of emotional, paranoid, red necks that probably should have their guns taken away. While the truth is most of us responsible gun owners don't have any illusions about protecting our families with automatic assault rifles or raising a militia against our government, we simply like collecting and shooting guns!

[AKHog]

the laws banning them were continued when improvements were made because if you are firing a weapon in a manner that is intended to be stealthy and hidden then your intentions cannot be legal. if you break into my house and i shoot you in the face then i shouldn't mind that the neighbors hear the shot. but at least as an American we have the right to own not only your rifle, but 20 hidden hand guns as well.

i dont see how shooting you loudly is bending a knee but if it makes you feel better then "LONG LIVE THE 45 CALIBER"

besides if i press the muzzle of a hand gun tightly against someones cranium, then i dont need a sound suppressor.  

As for suppressors, I want one just so I can plink with my .22 in my back yard without bothering the neighbors. Nothing illegal about that.

The rest of your comment is typical extremist illusion, that you need 20 hidden hand guns to be safe  . That is exactly the kind of talk that will stir up the other side to take away our guns. Besides if you have the IQ of at least a monkey and are defending yourself in your own house, you aren't going to pick up your .45 until you are out of 12 gauge shells.

[68Wooley]

No we don't pledge allegiance to England and the Queen.

Just to be clear, Queen Elizabeth II is the Head of State of New Zealand. However, the only relationship with the United Kingdom is that they happen to have the same Head of State.

Thankfully, the Monarchy is - for both countries - lacking in any real power, and is retained primarily for the purposes of attracting tourists.