Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on February 23, 2004, 07:42:09 AM
-
FIREARMS REFRESHER COURSE
1. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
2. A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone.
3. Glock: The original point and click interface.
4. Gun control is not about guns; it's about control.
5. If guns are outlawed, can we use swords?
6. If guns cause crime, then pencils cause misspelled words.
7. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
8. If you don't know your rights you don't have any.
9. Those who trade liberty for security have neither.
10. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
12. The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
14. Guns only have two enemies: rust and liberals.
15. Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety.
16. You don't shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
17. 911 - government sponsored Dial-a-Prayer.
18. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
19. Criminals love gun control -- it makes their jobs safer.
20. If guns cause crime, then matches cause arson.
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
22. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
23. Enforce the "gun control laws" we have, don't make more.
24. When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.
25. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
26. "...A government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
-
"Know guns, know peace and safety. No guns, no peace nor safety."
:rofl :aok
-
AHHH!!!! BUSH IS HITLER!!! AHHHH!!!
Wait.. sorry, wrong thread.
-
A gun is simply a tool. It can be used to turn off the T.V. or open your beer. :aok
-
11. What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
I think the part that mentions a "well regulated militia".
-
Gun nuts.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think the part that mentions a "well regulated militia".
"This is the Age of Terrorism, in which we must maintain a war footing without benefit of old-style national mobilization. Never has there been a greater need for a well regulated militia, competent in all the many and various disciplines required and rational in its structure."
--Jay Bryant
:aok
-
Did you think you just made a point?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Did you think you just made a point?
You seem defensive!? :eek:
Nah, just reminded me of an article I read about the definition of...and I had saved the ending paragraph because it reinforces my belief in our 2nd amendment. (Although the subject matter was focused on the National Guard)
As far as making a point to you? Why waste energy! ;)
-
13. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
Good thing you didn't post this on Feb 15, 2002. But frankly I say that stat is absolute nonsense.
Ooooops (http://story.news.yahoo.com/fc?cid=34&tmpl=fc&in=Sports&cat=Jayson_Williams)
-
He had to clean it twice, he missed the first time.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think the part that mentions a "well regulated militia".
Which, at the time it was written, consisted of every able-bodied male aged 16-60. "Well-regulated" was a pretty subjective term at the time also.
-
Firearms are bugger all use against oppressive governments. Unless you're in favour of unrestricted access to MANPADS, Anti-tank weapons, a range of landmines, and ultimately WMDs (as a deterrent, of course) as well as firearms, the "guns are to save us from oppresive government" line is merely sanctimonious, empty posturing.
Owning firearms certainly didn't seem to work out very well for the people at Ruby Ridge, or Waco.
-
Originally posted by -dead-
Firearms are bugger all use against oppressive governments. Unless you're in favour of unrestricted access to MANPADS, Anti-tank weapons, a range of landmines, and ultimately WMDs (as a deterrent, of course) as well as firearms, the "guns are to save us from oppresive government" line is merely sanctimonious, empty posturing.
Owning firearms certainly didn't seem to work out very well for the people at Ruby Ridge, or Waco.
LOL they aint come to my house yet :aok
-
Well Regulated Militia and Right to own guns are two different parts of one sentence.
Just because it's in one sentence, don't let it confuse your incompatint engglesh.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Well Regulated Militia and Right to own guns are two different parts of one sentence.
Just because it's in one sentence, don't let it confuse your incompatint engglesh.
They are separate clauses of the same sentence. And many constitutional scholars disagree regarding the intent of the words.
My point is, don't be so sure. For example... can you name a gun control law that has been overturned on 2nd amendment grounds?
-
how can you have a "militia" if the "people" do not have guns?
And the national guard is not the "militia" it is the national guard. the guard do not take their guns home , the guns are kept locked up in the armory.
At the present time there is no "regulated militia" because there is no need AT THIS TIME, that is not to say that at some time in the future a "militia" will not be organized, and that is why there is a 2nd amendment and that is why people have a right to keep guns.
-
The last word by the Supreme Court says otherwise.
-
What do you need a militia for at this point in time?
-
any time you say 'Supreme Court ' i want you to say 'dread scott decision'
the Supreme Court does not make law , they only rule on laws that have been challenged as to whether the law is constutional.
-
Originally posted by john9001
any time you say 'Supreme Court ' i want you to say 'dread scott decision'
the Supreme Court does not make law , they only rule on laws that have been challenged as to whether the law is constutional.
Last time the Supremes ruled on the 2nd, they said that there is NO INDIVIDUAL RIGHT to bear arms, and that the 2nd refers to militias.
-
Last time the Supremes ruled they got rid of Diana Ross
-
supreme court on 2nd amendment
http://www.nrawestla.org/2Asupreme_court_case.htm
-
Originally posted by mrblack
LOL they aint come to my house yet :aok
ROFL - I'd expect nothing less than that reply from an acknowledged king of sanctimonious, empty posturing. :D
-
_____________________________ ___
- America’s constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism dating back to the 18th century. In modern times, it is an unmitigated disaster which has given rise to many millions of privately owned guns and an alarming homicide rate, with a tally of more than 300,000 firearms related homicides in the past 25 years. While no law can be 100% effective, Britain has no “gun culture”, and much stricter firearms controls which have contained the annual tally of gun related homicides to a double digit value - fewer than one fiftieth of the American gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 population.
[/size][/color]
-
What is with you guys and this gun discussion rofl :D
I never ever think of guns in my daily life, dont walk around afraid either thinking if "what if somone got a gun, i prolly get one myselve too".
It seems kinda sick for me grow up please.
edit : instead of dic...s you prolly need a gun to uphold youre macho image or is that in lack of dic....s maybe :)
-
we wouldn't really be discussing our rights if there weren't so many that wish to deprive us of them....
I don't give a crap about swimming or rock climbing but if there were large groups trying to ban those things I bet there would be a lot of discussion.
lazs
-
airgurd... I bet I could rent you an apartment in a lot of places in the states where you might change your mind about gun ownership... I bet if you were old or a woman in those areas you would feel even more vulnerable.
What I find hypocritical is the young able bodied white guys on this board who live in middle class or upper middle class areas telling the rest of the populatin that they don't need the ability or choice to protect themselves. some even live in socialist little white bread countries.
lazs
-
Owning firearms certainly didn't seem to work out very well for the people at Ruby Ridge, or Waco.
WHAT a choad remark... Your comparing apples to oranges... The ppl at Waco, and ruby ridge are far from being alike to folks like my father, my friends who own guns, myself, most of my family for that mater...
Its not the honest citizens who are the problem its the ones who continue to purchace guns off the street illegaly. Its the honest citizens of the US who pay for these peoples actions... A drug dealer kills a kid with a gun he bought off the street and honest people pay the price for this actions by more laws, more bans on guns, and more needless paperwork to fill out when you purchace a gun...
I've been around guns and in the bisness all my life, since I could walk and even before my father braught me up around guns and honest people who enjoy shooting... Not once did I attend a class like which instructed me and others in ways of which to bring the US Government down... My point here stands, Honest people arent the ones to blame, its the ones that are always being overlooked, the criminals who have laws writen on their behalf by those people in office who think more laws will do good and help to put an end to this maddness and stop all these horrible gun crimes...
Tell me... Since most crimes are commited while under the influence of one substance or another, such as alcohol... Should we need to fill out and SP-67 and get background checked before we purchace a 6 pack?
-
But if you criminilize alcohol, then only criminals would have it!
Luck bastards. :(
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
But if you criminilize alcohol, then only criminals would have it!
Luck bastards. :(
ROFL:lol
-
Originally posted by john9001
supreme court on 2nd amendment
http://www.nrawestla.org/2Asupreme_court_case.htm
Did you bother to read this? From an NRA source too...
United States v. Miller (1939)
Miller was a moonshiner charged with possessing a sawed off shotgun, in violation of the NFA. He claimed he had a 2nd Amendment right to have it. The Supreme court said that the 2nd Amendment only protected militia weapons, and it hadn't been shown to the court that a sawed off shotgun was a militia weapon. The court sent the case back down to a lower court, but Miller died before any further legal action was taken. Miller and his lawyer did not appear and did not present a defense at the Supreme Court proceeding. The decision was that the 2nd Amendment does not give individuals a right to possess a gun. The court erred in saying that the 2nd Amend. only applies to militia arms, but it validated the 2nd's individual rights nature.
So the NRA's response was? The SC erred!? Doh!
-
Great! The government can define what weapons qualify as "militia weapons," just like they used their infinite knowledge to come up with a definition of "assault weapons."
-
actually.....the supreme court has upheld 2nd rights a lot more than they have ignored em. Very good book out right now on the subject. I don't have the article with me but anyone with a current issue of the American rifleman can see the story on it.
as for waco and ruby ridge.... say that those guys were right and they and a loarge portion of the armed citizenry were in revolt.... it certainly would seem that they were very effective as they tied up forces from 10 to 50 times greater than their own. seems effective enough to me.
lazs
-
Originally posted by MoRphEuS
WHAT a choad remark... Your comparing apples to oranges... The ppl at Waco, and ruby ridge are far from being alike to folks like my father, my friends who own guns, myself, most of my family for that mater...
Its not the honest citizens who are the problem its the ones who continue to purchace guns off the street illegaly. Its the honest citizens of the US who pay for these peoples actions... A drug dealer kills a kid with a gun he bought off the street and honest people pay the price for this actions by more laws, more bans on guns, and more needless paperwork to fill out when you purchace a gun...
I've been around guns and in the bisness all my life, since I could walk and even before my father braught me up around guns and honest people who enjoy shooting... Not once did I attend a class like which instructed me and others in ways of which to bring the US Government down... My point here stands, Honest people arent the ones to blame, its the ones that are always being overlooked, the criminals who have laws writen on their behalf by those people in office who think more laws will do good and help to put an end to this maddness and stop all these horrible gun crimes...
Tell me... Since most crimes are commited while under the influence of one substance or another, such as alcohol... Should we need to fill out and SP-67 and get background checked before we purchace a 6 pack?
Lordy you're giving that strawman a helluva beating. :) But how does any of what you posted relate to my argument that firearms are of no use against an oppressive government?
It doesn't matter what credo those at Waco or Ruby Ridge held - and frankly I think they were complete loons. They are exactly the same as all gunowners in the one critical area necessary for my argument - ergo: they owned guns. And the fact remains they were easily squashed by the Government despite being well-stocked up with firearms.
End result: Government 2 Rebels with firearms 0.
Seems to me they needed much heavier weaponry to stand a chance. So my original point still goes: unless you're in favour of legalizing much heavier weaponry, the "guns save us from oppressive government" argument is nonsense because they quite patently don't.
You can argue that the Waco or Ruby Ridge lot were criminals, but it's a totally irrelevant tangent, and kind of a tautology in that anyone who stands up against a government with the aid of a firearm is by definition a criminal - that's how the whole government thing works. The only rebels who don't get branded as criminals are the ones that win, and they only stop being criminals when they've won.
Anyone who thinks they're free from government oppression because they own a bunch of firearms is fooling themselves: try not paying any tax and see how far your gun collection gets you with that.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
actually.....the supreme court has upheld 2nd rights a lot more than they have ignored em. Very good book out right now on the subject. I don't have the article with me but anyone with a current issue of the American rifleman can see the story on it.
as for waco and ruby ridge.... say that those guys were right and they and a loarge portion of the armed citizenry were in revolt.... it certainly would seem that they were very effective as they tied up forces from 10 to 50 times greater than their own. seems effective enough to me.
lazs
Well they did tie up a lot of people, but if they were in open revolt in large numbers, the government would no doubt up the ante and use airstrikes and armour. Small arms don't really tie up those sort of forces very much.
-
Those who trade liberty for security have neither
tough one but i'll try
err...you buy a gun for security...lets say your in the woods and a grizzly bear shows up and starts acting aggresivly...what your supposed to do with a grizzly is play dead...but if you have a gun chances are your gonna shoot the grizzly...and unless you get real lucky all thats gonna do is piss him off...
or lets say your in the local kwik-e-mart and a robber shows up and pulls a gun...if your unarmed you just gonna do what he says...if your armed chances are your gonna wait for the oppurtune moment and shoot the ****a to hell...
the point is when you have a gun your response patterns become tied to it ...in most situations your reaction will be to shoot the problem...wether or not the situation requires it your gonna shoot...basicly your reactions get "slaved" to the gun...now wheres the liberty in that
without some security liberty is pointless because chances are somoenes gonna kill ya before you can start enjoying it...
-
21. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
This is a fallacy. Governments don't fear people. People fear people. That's why people buy guns for "self-defense" in the first place.
-
so dead... you really don't know what would happen if there were open and popular revolt in the U.S. and how effective firearms would be against the government. for sure tho... they would be better than the alternative.
And vort.... in the case of the grizszly... you are probly screwed in any case.. lots of cases of people pretending to be dead and then bieng mauled or killed .... either way... you don't have to shoot the bear just because you have a gun... you just have one more choice... more options.
As for the robber at the 7-11 who is no doubt whacked out.... yeah... I trust him to not hurt anyone if we just be nice to him! Truth is... in the U.S. you are from 1.7 to 7 times (depending on your sex)less likely to be injured if you resist violence with a firearm than if you don't. Sorry if the facts don't bear out your theory... but that's how it is with theory's I guess.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so dead... you really don't know what would happen if there were open and popular revolt in the U.S. and how effective firearms would be against the government. for sure tho... they would be better than the alternative.
Not really, considering the alternative I offered was "unrestricted access to MANPADS, Anti-tank weapons, a range of landmines, and ultimately WMDs (as a deterrent, of course)" as well as the firearms you place such faith in. Or are you suggesting that the addition of heavier weapons would be less effective than people armed only with firearms?
-
do you have any idea of what the U.S. looks like? In a popular revolt there would be no way that an army could be in all the hot spots at once.
To say that there is no way that a popular uprising could succeed is silly. And... just because you start with a Garrand doesn't mean you have to finish with one. Resistance is allways effective... the better armed the resitance the more effective it is. that has allways been the case and in a large open country like the U.S. it would even be more so.
hong kong would of course be different.
lazs
-
:rolleyes:
-
"""what your supposed to do with a grizzly is play dead"""
i don't think you would have to "play dead", i think you would be really dead.
-
Still waiting for a "Gun Control" law that was overturned on 2nd Amendment grounds... anyone? Bueller?
You see. If it were so obvious that we all have the individual right to own guns NONE of these discussions would be taking place. I think that if you all really need the constitution to protect your gun rights you should lobby for another amendment that makes things clear.
-
MT , the right to self protection pre dates the constution, that is what they were trying to say when they wrote the constution.
one of them thar "inalienable rights" that they was talkn about.
-
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolf Hitler, April 15, 1935 during his Berlin Day speech
-
Still nothing huh?
slobber on.
btw... I like guns.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future."
--Adolf Hitler, April 15, 1935 during his Berlin Day speech
He also said the Third Reich would last 1000 years. It was over in less than 20.
Got any Saddam Hussein quotes? :lol
-
beetle you miss the meaning.
first hitler took away the guns , then hitler took away the knives, then hitler took away the jews.
i realize that you are a subject of the crown and the only "rights" you have are the ones parliment gives you (or takes away) you have no constution or superem court to protect your "rights", if you do not under stand america, thats ok , just don't tell freemen how to run their country.
this was not ment to be an personal attack on beetle, there are others who deserve it more
-
Originally posted by beet1e
He also said the Third Reich would last 1000 years. It was over in less than 20.
Got any Saddam Hussein quotes? :lol
Exactly. Why, there are senators in our Gov't pushing for the same type of legislation.:eek:
Glad you understand our plight.
-
Originally posted by john9001
beetle you miss the meaning.
first hitler took away the guns , then hitler took away the knives, then hitler took away the jews.
i realize that you are a subject of the crown and the only "rights" you have are the ones parliment gives you (or takes away) you have no constution or superem court to protect your "rights", if you do not under stand america, thats ok , just don't tell freemen how to run their country.
this was not ment to be an personal attack on beetle, there are others who deserve it more
Oh OK. Allow me to return the favour if I may, by pointing out that I don't think you understand the situation in Europe. I am not tied to Britain in any way. I can leave at any time and go to live in any of the other member states, only about half of which are monarchies.
-
mt... If it wasn't obvious that we could keep and bear arms they would have been banned by now. No fed or state government has ever tried to ban firearms. They have tried to ban firearms types with various degrees of success.. many of their bans have latter been overturned or recinded. The supreme court has come down more on the side of individual firearms rights far more often than not.
lazs
-
"If it wasn't protected we would have had them taken away" is hardly an argument lazs. Legally speaking, the SC's last word was that no, you don't have the individual right to bear arms.
And, I'm still waiting for an example of ONE gun control law that has been overturned on 2nd Amendment grounds.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
do you have any idea of what the U.S. looks like? In a popular revolt there would be no way that an army could be in all the hot spots at once.
To say that there is no way that a popular uprising could succeed is silly. And... just because you start with a Garrand doesn't mean you have to finish with one. Resistance is allways effective... the better armed the resitance the more effective it is. that has allways been the case and in a large open country like the U.S. it would even be more so.
hong kong would of course be different.
lazs
I've got a fair idea of what the US looks like - it's about the same size as this country - well, China's slightly smaller, and of course the other big difference is that the US has just shy of a billion less people living in it. Of course HK would be different in the same way NYC (closest I can find - HK has 6.8 million NYC 7.3) would be different from the entire US.
China has a lot of guns too though: "China probably is home to a civilian arsenal of several tens of millions of guns" according to the 2003 Small Arms Survey - though they don't have any official figures [who'd have thunk it!]. "China appears to have more publicly owned firearms than almost any other country" according to the 2002 smallarmssurvey.org. There was a series of crackdowns on illegal gun ownership from 1996-2002, yielding over 30,000 military firearms, according to the government although the total number of illegal firearms destroyed could be as high as 1.34 million according one study cited in the Small Arms Survey 2003.
Is the Chinese Communist government not repressive? Does it have a popular mandate? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, if it is unpopular and represssive, why no news on the armed rebellion to overthrow the government? The people have firearms and as you point out "just because you start with a Garrand doesn't mean you have to finish with one." And not only is China far too big for the army to be everywhere at once, there are a lot more people - 389 civilians for every soldier, as opposed to the US's 110 people for every soldier.
How about Iraq and that nasty Mr Hussein - popular uprising? Yes. Large quantities of civilians armed with rifles etc.? Yes. Open country? Yes. Regime change? Nope. Rebels crushed by helicopters and tanks. I note the insurgents currently attacking their erstwhile liberators also seem to favour landmines, RPGs, mortars, MANPADS and car bombs over firearms. Perhaps firearms just don't get the job done after all.
Any examples of firearms v tanks etc rebellions that have come out happily for the civvies with firearms? I can't think of any - for a while I thought Iran, but there the army remained neutral. Still seems like time to ask for much heavier weaponry to me, if you're to keep the "against oppressive government" paradigm going.
-
there is no way to determine if a revolution would succeed or not... too many variables.. There are numerous cases tho where armed rebelion or resistance delayed and or helped to defeat tyrants. Hong Kong is not china but so far as I know china has had many rebelions.
MT... knapp vs Schweitzer the court ruled that the fifth and the second were individual rights.
"Supreme Court gun cases two centuries of gun rights revealed" by David B Kopel, Stephen p hallbrook Ph D and Alan Korvin
92 cases studied that show the suprems have consistently come down on the side of individual firearms rights.
there has been no successful federal attempt to ban individuals from owning and bearing arms.
lazs
-
Originally posted by beet1e
________________________________
- America’s constitutional right to bear arms is an anachronism dating back to the 18th century. In modern times, it is an unmitigated disaster which has given rise to many millions of privately owned guns and an alarming homicide rate, with a tally of more than 300,000 firearms related homicides in the past 25 years. While no law can be 100% effective, Britain has no “gun culture”, and much stricter firearms controls which have contained the annual tally of gun related homicides to a double digit value - fewer than one fiftieth of the American gun-related homicide rate per 100,000 population.
[/size][/color] [/B]
ENGLAND CRIME CAPITAL OF THE WEST
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/crime/story.jsp?story=314832
How The British Maximize Crime
Did you know that a person`s chances of being mugged in London are 6 times higher than in New York City? Did you know that assault, robbery and burglary rates are far higher in England than in the U.S.? Did you know that in England self-defense of person or property is regarded as an antisocial act, and that a victim who injures or kills an assailant is likely to be treated with more severity than the assailant?
Look up WA. Post 8/08/2002
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_text_search-0=BRITISH%20AND%20CRIME&s_dispstring=BRITISH%20CRIME%20AND%20date(07/01/2002%20to%2008/01/2002)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=07/01/2002%20to%2008/01/2002&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no
English Police Raid Youngster`s Birthday Party
Anti-gunners in America have long pointed to England as a nation with model gun laws. However, the restrictions there have led to increases in crime, and ever increasing intrusions on personal freedom. Now, England has taken its phobia of guns to a new level, police there recently raided an young boy`s birthday party, because he was seen playing with his present--a BB gun.
http://icnewcastle.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/0100local/page.cfm?objectid=11018615&method=full
YEA your perfect!!
and can we have all the privately owned firearms we sent you when you were worried about invasion, but didn’t have enough weapons to form a militia. We Yanks sent you millions of our own weapons but they were never sent back, can we have them now?
-
I'm sensing the general gun nut consensus is that by owning a gun the police are less oppressive. Very interesting conclusion.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
He also said the Third Reich would last 1000 years. It was over in less than 20.
Got any Saddam Hussein quotes? :lol
Hey Beet1e, short memory you have there.... Don't you recall your government quite literally begging for firearms to equip the Home Guard, who were drilling with pitchforks and axes while Hitler gathered troops on the Channel for an invasion? American civilians shipped thousands of rifles and shotguns to Britain in 1940.
Listen, if firearms frighten you, don't own one. Simple, right?
My regards,
Widewing
-
A couple of points, if I may.
Constitutional arguments are pointless. The fact remains that firearm ownership in the U.S. is legal. If it were not so, federal, state and local governments would have collected them a hundred years ago.
My thoughts boil down to this; if you don't like firearms (for whatever reason), don't own one. I won't insist that you do, if you mind your own business and stop telling me what I can and cannot own. I don't complain about your gas-hog, polluting SUV and I have no right to tell what to buy or own. You see, in America people can have what they want, they're not limited to what someone or some government determines that they need. If that were the case, you might be required to trade in that Expedition for a Focus, or that Durango for a Neon as they certainly will meet your basic need.
Indeed, there is nothing more intrusive than the self-appointed, self-righteous who cannot mind their own business. My view on this is simple, keep your nose out of my business, and I'll let you keep your nose. Simple, isn't it?
My regards,
Widewing
-
The sole intent of a pistol is a small, easy-to-carry weapon used to shoot people. Some people have a problem with the high availabilty of this kind of weapon.
-
The sole intent of a pistol is a small, easy-to-carry weapon used to keep people from harming or killing you. Some people have a problem with the high availabilty of this kind of weapon.
-
Originally posted by john9001
The sole intent of a pistol is a small, easy-to-carry weapon used to keep people from harming or killing you. Some people have a problem with the high availabilty of this kind of weapon.
Are they not also used to kill non-criminals? Even unintentionally?
-
Scootter - nice crime quote from the Independent - that's Dowding's favourite UK paper. :)
But whatever you say and whatever newspaper quotes you can come up with cannot change the facts. Crime capital of the west Britain may be (if the Independent is to be believed), but we've still never had more than 100 gun slayings in any calendar year. The US has never had less than 5,000 in modern times, and some years (1992) the tally has been higher than 13,000. That does not include all the deaths not recorded as crimes - accidental discharges etc. No newspaper quote is going to change the facts.
Widewing. I don't think I'm scared of firearms. I've shot three of Lazs's, including the Dan Wesson .44 Magnum. But maybe some people are scared of firearms and don't want to own one. But what does this have to do with the price of fish? Whether or not anyone is scared of firearms changes nothing. The US is still the gun crime capital of the western world. The funny thing is, and what the gun nuts simply cannot understand, is that when you make guns available on the scale that's seen in America, people buy them and use them for their designed purpose: Killing people. Why else do you think their are so many gun homicides in the US? - at least 50 times as many as in Britain in any calendar year you care to mention since WW2. It's patently bleedin' obvious why that is. :rolleyes:
Who is doing all the killing? Criminals like drug dealers, gang members, carjackers, pimps... so when I read the rhetoric that claims that gun owner = better citizen, it just makes me laugh! :lol:lol
-
Originally posted by hawker238
The sole intent of a pistol is a small, easy-to-carry weapon used to shoot people. Some people have a problem with the high availabilty of this kind of weapon.
Very true
None more then ones who wish to do you harm or wish to take from you what is yours.
Ask a crook why he prays on the elderly and he will tell you "they are the easy ones", ask why linebackers are seldom mugged.
You see it is a matter of your willingness to be a victim that adds to the crime in the world, if everyone refused to be a victim and chose to fight back, crime would drop by a factor of 10.
In a way I blame people who encourage crime by making it so easy and lucrative, how’s that for an indictment? I can say because I was armed there is one less crime statistic in the world and I never fired a shot.
I for one find it amusing when bad guys kill each other they add to the "gun statistics" ok but this is a good thing, perhaps we need to separate these out. Many drug dealers and gang bangers kill each other, I have no problem with this, only that they inflate the numbers and Beetle then uses this to throw back at us.
If I was a mugger I would move somewere that no one was armed, London would be good.
My two cents:)
-
Be a man. Get rid of our gun and use your fist.
Cowards.
-
widewing said it all... you can't control your own runaway crime but no one is telling you that you have to get armed even tho it is the obvious solution.
the pistol has the same purpose it allways had but advancements in ammo, accuracy and portability have made it even better than it ever was. The pistol is a weapon that can be easily carried without restricting movement and can easily be brought into play... It is a weapon that can be effectively used one handed and has an effedctive accurate range of from 2 yards to well over 600 yards. It can be carried concealed and the knowledge that people are carrying such weapons cuts down on crime. It is used more than any other weapon in preventing crime... perhaps as many as 2 million times a year acording to FBI studies.
as wide says.... if you are afraid of en... don't buy one. The real 'gun nut' is the person with unreasonable fear of firearms in the face of all the facts.
lazs
-
nielson... would you say the same to your mother or girlfriend? How bout your grandparents? how bout the invalid? do you suggest that you deserve whatever happens to you if your assailant or assailants are stronger?
lazs
-
Having a house full of guns and claiming its for self defence is rather dumb.
Guns are ok if:
1) You hunt.
2) Are a memeber of a gunclub and compete, but then there really is no reason to take it home... leave it locked up at the club.
If you dont fall under these criteria your gun should be taken from you or not given to you in the first place.
Its a fact Lazs wether you like it or not but countries that allow tons of guns stored in private homes also has alot more gun related accidents and crime. Countries with strict guncontrol has VERY little. You can debate this all you want, but thse facts cant be ignored.
Saying everyone has a right to own guns cause the criminals has guns only makes the problem grow.
An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.
-
Btw. Didnt mean that all gunowners are cowards, just those that use them or threaten to use them on other people even if its in self-defence.
If a bad guy points a gun at you , and you point one back the chanses of you getting killed are higher. If you are scared that he will run of with your stuff then your values are wrong imo.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
widewing said it all... you can't control your own runaway crime but no one is telling you that you have to get armed even tho it is the obvious solution.
I put the question to non-Americans a few weeks ago. People from 16 countries said they did not wish to see gun availability become like that of the US. Read Nilsen's post ^ to see why. I know it's hard to understand if you've never lived anywhere that doesn't have (many) guns, but there it is.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
MT... knapp vs Schweitzer the court ruled that the fifth and the second were individual rights.
there has been no successful federal attempt to ban individuals from owning and bearing arms.
lazs
Sure there has. The restriction on assault weapons or fully automatic weapons.
Still looking for a reference on Knapp vs Schweitzer... nothing so far.
Still no example of a gun control law overturned on 2nd amendment grounds?
-
Wait...if they repeal the 2nd Ammendment, will I not be able to wear T-shirts anymore?
:confused:
-
Originally posted by beet1e
I put the question to non-Americans a few weeks ago. People from 16 countries said they did not wish to see gun availability become like that of the US. Read Nilsen's post ^ to see why. I know it's hard to understand if you've never lived anywhere that doesn't have (many) guns, but there it is.
Beetle, I think it is hard to understand on all fronts, you had fun shooting guns so you may be able to understand a little. Lets just let it go as it is, we don't try to change you and ask you not to try so hard to understand or change us, it really is not all that important is it?
Is not the differences in culture’s what makes things interesting? When you were here did you not enjoy the things you found different? Why must we be like you guys when it comes to guns?:)
-
neilson... you are wrong... you are 1.7 to 7 (depending on your sex)times better off defending yourself with a firearm than not defending yourself or appeasing your attacker. I also do not agree that your reasons for owning guns are the only reasons that are acceptable. the only acceptable reason for owning a gun is..... because I want to.
beetle said " put the question to non-Americans a few weeks ago. People from 16 countries said they did not wish to see gun availability become like that of the US. "
shame on you beetle! not one single person on your poll said that. You basicly asked if guns should be left in a huge pile in the center of every town so that people could pick em up as they pleased and a few people said they thought that was extreme.
My poll asked if you thought your countries laws were too strict or not strict enough or ... just right 13 felt... too strict...8 thought just right and 2 felt not strict enough.... see any of a myriad of posts to see why that is so.... most people feel that they are the best jusdge of what they need or want for themselves.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Beetle, I think it is hard to understand on all fronts, you had fun shooting guns so you may be able to understand a little. Lets just let it go as it is, we don't try to change you and ask you not to try so hard to understand or change us, it really is not all that important is it?
Is not the differences in culture’s what makes things interesting? When you were here did you not enjoy the things you found different? Why must we be like you guys when it comes to guns?:)
Scoott - fair enough. Of course I enjoy my visits to America. I have never suggested that law abiding Americans should be made to give up their guns. Why? Because I am opposed to unilateral disarmament. But a few things: 1) I don't believe that a gun should be treated as a toy. 2) The American policies which have allowed millions of guns to get into circulation will continue to exact a terrible price in terms of the number of lives lost each year as a result. 3) I don't like the way guns are glorified, almost as gods, any more than I would approve of ordinary folk crowing about whatever nuclear or chemical weapons their government had. Can you imagine posts on this board in which the chemical formula for sarin is discussed? Or threads with titles like "Fun with Semtex"? Can you buy Semtex at K-Mart or WalMart? If not, why not? Can you imagine what might happen if you could? :rolleyes:
Lazs,
The question I asked (in that other thread) was Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?
That was the question I wanted answered - not some other question that you might prefer me to have asked. And the question was directed to non-Americans, so your input was redundant. But in point of fact, the first two people to answer had understood the question perfectly, and answered with a simple NO, as did others. Some people gave a more qualified response such as "Unrestricted No, Licensed Yes". I think those answers were clear enough. The question itself described a scenario which would be met by four criteria. In one desperate attempt to discredit it, you pretended it was four separate questions. :lol:p That thread is here (http://www.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=107970), by the way.
Now I'm going for a drink with some friends at the pub. I might have a gin and tonic. Lazs, I know you don't drink, but a gin and tonic is one drink, not two separate drinks! Nah, sod it, I'll have a pint of London Pride...
-
Why aren't sub-machines guns available to the public?
-
lazs2...
Must be different in the US than here then, its the other way around here.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Why aren't sub-machines guns available to the public?
Oh, but they are if you want to pay the tax and get the proper license.....
My regards,
Widewing
-
yep... you can own full auto guns here but it is "regulated" by the feds... In affect it is so restrictive as to remove the right to won them... this is the problem with allowing the feds to "regulate" I don't want firearms ownership to be for the priviliged few under heavy restriction.
neilsn... I bet if you dug a lillte deeper than some catch phrase by your antgunners... you would find that things are indeed the same in your country. I doubt that your sociopaths are any more polite than ours. no doubt you have fewer tho.
lazs
-
beetle... you are correct in your "gin and tonic is one drink not two" analodgy but......
what you asked in your gun thread/poll was 4 questions.... It was the exact same thing as you asking if people liked gin and tonic and then when you got 30 people to say no.... you then added things up to mean that 30 people did not like gin or... 30 people did not like tonic.
mine of course simply asked if you thought your countries laws were too strict or not strict enough.
lazs
-
If I asked someone if they liked walks along the beach on summer evenings, most people would answer YES, some might answer NO. You're saying that those are invalid responses to those FOUR questions - ie. do they like walks, do they like beaches, do they like summertime, and do they like evenings. :rolleyes:
Give it up, Lazs. You're way out of your depth in the semantics hot-tub.
-
lazs2: do you have any idea of what the U.S. looks like? In a popular revolt there would be no way that an army could be in all the hot spots at once.
Right.
US army is small, most of it is ouitside US and the actual combat troops are the small fraction of the total number. In case of a civil war in US, considerable part of those would not defend the government against a widespread revolt.
There is no need to start with Garand or end with anything better. The scoped deer rifles are extremely effective weapons - against people, vehicles, helicopters, etc. Americans also have plenty of shotguns, sidearms and milirary-type semi-auto rifles available.
Many people have .316, .416 and even .50 cal and know how to use them.
A really popular uprising - involving most of the population supporting or indifferent to the rebels - would succeed without any need for the heavy arms.
midnight Target: I think that if you all really need the constitution to protect your gun rights.
The Constitution is a piece of paper. It does not protect rights, it just lists them. People protect or violate rights if they have power and inclination to do so. They mostly don't so they have no rights.
-dead-: Is the Chinese Communist government not repressive? Does it have a popular mandate? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, if it is unpopular and represssive, why no news on the armed rebellion to overthrow the government?
How about Iraq and that nasty Mr Hussein - popular uprising? Yes. Large quantities of civilians armed with rifles etc.? Yes. Open country? Yes. Regime change? Nope. Rebels crushed by helicopters and tanks.
Dread, you use circular arguments. You presume that Chinese and Iraqi regimes were not overthrown because the population did not posess heavy weapons and then proceed to prove they were not overthrown because the population did not posess heavy weapons.
More likely explanation is that they could overthow those regimes but did not intend to. At least the majority of the population.
I know for sure that if every russian in 1980 was issued any weapons he/she wanted, there would not have been a rebellion. The police is russia went around unarmed and millions of people drafted into soviet army every year did not dream of turning powerfull weapons at their disposal against the government.
If people at Waco had any kind of weapons including a nuke, it would not have helped them to defeat the government. The bunch of militant shia fundamantalists that set out to rebel against Hussein in 1991 did not enjoy popular support even among mostly-shia army.
Most russians and chinese and iraqis did not care to overthrow the government - just like US Democrats do not care to overthrow a government or secceed when a republican president, Congress and Senate are elected.
miko
-
I've stayed out of this becuase most of it is the same old arguements by the same people, but this is for MT:
A 2001 5th Circuit Appellate decision did come down saying that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right. It was United States v. Emerson
A good article on the issue from the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel102501.shtml)
A Right of the People
The meaning of the Emerson decision.
By David Kopel, research director, Independence Institute & Glenn Reynolds, law professor, University of Tennessee & writer for InstaPundit.Com.
October 25, 2001 2:10 p.m.
Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released a decision that, in ordinary times, would have gotten a lot of attention. The decision, United States v. Emerson, recognized that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees individual citizens a right to own guns...
The Fifth Circuit concluded:
We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for interpreting the Second Amendment. We hold, consistent with Miller, that it protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms, such as the pistol involved here, that are suitable as personal, individual weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller.
-
beetle said... "If I asked someone if they liked walks along the beach on summer evenings, most people would answer YES, some might answer NO. You're saying that those are invalid responses to those FOUR questions - ie. do they like walks, do they like beaches, do they like summertime, and do they like evenings. "
no beetle... again... if you had a poll and asked if people like walks along the beach on summer evenings and you got 30 no answers it would be inappropriate to conclude that people didn't like beaches or... that they didn't like summer or even that they didn't like to walk. You would use it as proof that those people didn't like the evening.
or... if you had added "in a storm" to the end of your question and got 30 no answers you would conclude that people didn't like walking on the beach.
Ask your poll questions one at a time and you will get 4 answers.
in your gun poll you are asking very different things... some are mild and some are relatively radical... A yes answer would mean that you agreed with all the radical questions as well as the mild ones.
just as perhaps we all like beaches and we all like summer we may not all like to walk or walk on the beach during a storm.
lazs
-
the whole thing in a nutshell: we in America have the RIGHT to bear arms.. no one says you HAVE to..
or that you HAVE to use it..
that's where education comes in.
I'd rather live with armed/informed/educated citizens nearby than with un-armed ones. (in fact I do)
armed-uneducated (with regards to the weapon) is pretty scarey too.
-
Lazs.
It really doesn't matter. I asked the question I wanted to ask in my poll, and got lucid answers from people in 16 different countries. And there was nothing you could do to stop it.
And Lazs, more than 40 people responded to that thread. None of the others had difficulty understanding the question (note the singular). None of the others felt the need to enter into a debate about semantics.
-
Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98, 99 (9th Cir. 1996), involved another § 1983 suit by a citizen against state officials who denied his application for a concealed weapons permit. The Ninth Circuit decided to "follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen." Id. at 101. Thus, the plaintiff's lack of standing was dispositive, though the court did note that the Second Amendment "is not incorporated against the states." Id. at 103 n.10.
Cases v. United States, 131 F.2d 916, 923 (1st Cir. 1942), also discussed in note 19, infra, the First Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment was not infringed because there was no evidence that the defendant "was or ever had been a member of any military organization or that his use of the weapon . . . was in preparation for a military career" and the evidence showed he was "on a frolic of his own and without any thought or intention of contributing to the efficiency of the well regulated militia." Id. While the First Circuit did not explicitly adopt the sophisticated collective rights model, its analysis is in many respects consonant with it.
United States v. Hale, 978 F.2d 1016 (8th Cir. 1992), the Eighth Circuit found it unnecessary to commit to either the states' rights or the sophisticated collective rights model of the Second Amendment. The court proclaimed that "[c]onsidering this history, we cannot conclude that the Second Amendment protects the individual possession of military weapons." Id. at 1019. Yet, the court went on to consider whether the defendant's actual possession of machine guns was "reasonably related to the preservation of a well regulated militia." Id. at 1020. Like the Third Circuit in Rybar, the Eighth Circuit held that membership in an unorganized militia did not satisfy the reasonable relationship test. The court felt that unless the reasonable relationship test was satisfied, it was "irrelevant" whether the Second Amendment was collective or individual in nature. Id. However, the court's inquiry into the nature of the defendant's possession of the machine guns is more compatible with the sophisticated collective rights model.
There are more, but that is a start.
-
MT... not one decision that says that the second is not an idividual right... some decisions seem to point to the fact that it is up to the state... The supreme court has never implicitly tied the owning of firearms to militia or military service only.
What has happened consitently is the courts unwillingness to decide on individual rights.. They have upheld bans on certain types of weapons on states rights grounds. They have also said that the individuals rights do not extend to some military weapons in a few cases.
The supreme court has never said that being part of a militia was necessary in order for an individual to own firearms. Quite the oppossite... militia groups have found no protection from the courts when they petition to own banned weapons.
lazs
-
beetle said... "And Lazs, more than 40 people responded to that thread. None of the others had difficulty understanding the question (note the singular). None of the others felt the need to enter into a debate about semantics"
no... but you haven't really asked people what they thought of your conclussion. That was not up for debate. You took what you wanted from your 4 part poll question and used that to prove a preconcieved question.
My poll cancels out your poll as I got the oppossite results. That would make it seem that one of the polls was flawed.
my question was simply "do you think the firearms laws in your country are to strict or not strict enough." basicly, a two part question with 2 possible answers. too strict or not strict enough.
sooooo.... I got my results honestly. you did not. I also know that you will bring out your flawed poll from time to time in the future to prove some point or another... That is fine but you won't be being honest... I simply wanted to have an honest poll to refer to so I made mine.
lazs
-
MT, and as I posted on AGW, you said you wanted a Federal case that said the 2nd Amnd was an individual right and I gave you U.S. v. Emerson. So there is one.
And now you and I could post any number of cases and law reviews that hold one side or the other. But it wouldn't mean anything. That is becuase we have different Federal Circuits saying different things. This is not supposed to happen. And if it does, the Supreme Court is supposed to issue a ruling to decide the issue. I'll grant you that the 3 SC cases hint (none really come out and say it) that it's a collective right. But, in legal terms, the issue has never been settled by them. And the general belief on this issue has been changing. I beleive that if you checked, you'd find that the majority of scholars dealing with this issue would say that they believe it's an individual right, just like the others discussed. (1st, 4th, 5th etc.) So you can't rest your case on ones decided 50 or 100 years ago by the SC. The school of thought has swung.
There have been 2 cases dealing with this issue in the last 4 years, Emerson and one in the 9th Circuit. Emerson's court said it was an idividual right and the 9th said it wasn't. (Now two things to conisder, one the 9th is liberal and quoting a 9th decision is a great way to prove the opposite amongst lawyers, and even the NRA requested that the appelants in that case not take it up because it was a crappy case) Once again, we now find ourselves with different interpretations of the law in different parts of the country. An issue the SC is supposed to settle.
And something else to consider. If you look at the cases the SC decided and the ones you've quoted, they have all been matters of someone comitting a crime with a gun. There hasn't been a case of a regular citizen challenging a law. I believe that this would also make a difference.
Which brings us to where we are today. The Roe v. Wade decision has really brought one thing home to everyone. Once the SC decides an issue, it may be 50 years or more before you get them to decide it another way. So, if you're going to take a case up, it had best be a damn good one, because if you don't get the ruling you want, the law will be agianst you for a long time.
This issue is undecided in legal terms. And eventually either Handgun Control Inc. or the NRA is going to believe they have a case that will settle the issue in their favor and take it up. The SC passed on its last opportunity to do this (the 9th Circuit case, even they didn't want to be involved in something the 9th did). Then we will have our answer and any debate will be academic. Until then, you and I can argue, but it's thoeretical at best. You have your beliefs and older cases. I have mine and a very new case. And neither one of us could be assured of what the SC would say the law is.
-
dune... that is extremely well put... both factions are afraid to bring it to the supreme court for the reasons you stated. The left is going for a war of incrementalism... eroding of rights while the right is going for a defense strategy...
I believe the gun rights advocates need to ratchet things up.. defending criminals is a loser.
My way would be to have as many law abiding citizens as possible apply for concealed carry permits in non right to carry states or cities with gun bans and be, of course, turned down.
The law of averages will catch up and one of these rejected citizens will be violently killed or crippled by an assailant and it will be clear to all that if the victim had been armed he would have been able to protect/defend himself... the stats are out there on the effectivness of defense with a firearm and the effectiveness of concealed carry in other states/cities... FBI studies etc. (antigunners have no ammunition... excuse the pun)
At this point... NRA sponsored lawyers sue the city or state that turned down the victims request.
lazs
-
Very well put Dune. Actually you stated in much clearer terms what I have been trying to say in my own muddled fashion. It (the individual right to bear arms) isn't as cut and dried as the NRA or many posters on this BBS would think.
And.... Citing the 9th and the 5th Circuit's decisions as the only 2 recent ones is a little disingenuous.
Love v. Pepersack (4th Cir. 1995) - Collective
United States v. Warin, (6th Cir. 1976) - Collective
Gillespie v. City of Indianapolis, (7th Cir. 1999) - Collective
United States v. Rybar, (3d Cir. 1996) - Collective
-
I believe I said the two most recent. Especially since the 5th's decision that it was an individual right.
But thanks for the complement :)
-
I would also say that of all the courts ever.... the 9th is the best example of liberalism and nanny state gone crazy...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
beetle said... "And Lazs, more than 40 people responded to that thread. None of the others had difficulty understanding the question (note the singular). None of the others felt the need to enter into a debate about semantics"
no... but you haven't really asked people what they thought of your conclussion. That was not up for debate. You took what you wanted from your 4 part poll question and used that to prove a preconcieved question.
My poll cancels out your poll as I got the oppossite results. That would make it seem that one of the polls was flawed.
my question was simply "do you think the firearms laws in your country are to strict or not strict enough." basicly, a two part question with 2 possible answers. too strict or not strict enough.
sooooo.... I got my results honestly. you did not. I also know that you will bring out your flawed poll from time to time in the future to prove some point or another... That is fine but you won't be being honest... I simply wanted to have an honest poll to refer to so I made mine.
lazs
You got different results because you asked an entirely different question, not because you asked the same question in a different way. But that's what you're now pretending to have done. If someone says the firearms laws in his country are too strict, that could mean that the guy feels that having to keep his shotgun locked in a safe is an unnecessary hassle. But that SAME guy probably DOES NOT want to see handguns made freely available at retail outlets where he lives, which is what I was asking in MY question.
Here's a parallel scenario: Imagine I had asked "Would you like to live in arid conditions where the daytime temperature regularly exceeds 45° Celsius?" (that's one question not two, by the way). And along comes Lazs and says "hey, that was an unfair question. A fairer question would be "would you like the weather to be a little warmer where you live?". And when, inevitably, the answers to your question and my question do not match, Lazs says "oooh look, my question was much fairer and got more honest results, and therefore cancels out beet1e's question". :rolleyes:
-
Beetle your poll question was colored by remarks and missleading information that I feel voided any fairness in the question you meant to ask.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Beetle your poll question was colored by remarks and missleading information that I feel voided any fairness in the question you meant to ask.
Well of course you would think that, as might the majority of gun toting Americans...
...which is why I invited only non-Americans to respond. It wasn't really a poll as such. It was just a question to which I sought answers.
-
Would you like to see guns and gun ownership introduced to your country, guns to be made freely available at retail outlets, and for gun ownership by private citizens to be all but unrestricted, and guaranteed by contitutional right?
Hear's how I would pose the question: ( if you meant to use the USA as an example)
"Would you like to see gun ownership introduced to your country and available at retail outlets, and gun ownership to be legally available only to law obiding citizens whom are gauranteed that right by constitution?"
Also, you didn't mention the US or it's law in the question, so it did not imply or specify any gun laws or restrictions, which of course the US has plenty of. Your question is a fair question, but to use the results to say that it relates to how people feel about US gun laws is not accurate or fair.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Hear's how I would pose the question: ( if you meant to use the USA as an example)
No, I did not use the US as an example. My question had nothing to do with the US. Originally posted by NUKE
Your question is a fair question, but to use the results to say that it relates to how people feel about US gun laws is not accurate or fair.
My question had nothing to do with the US or its gun laws.
-
Originally posted by beet1e
No, I did not use the US as an example. My question had nothing to do with the US. My question had nothing to do with the US or its gun laws.
then why use the polls result to conclude this?
Looks like the vote against unrestricted availability of guns goes 15-2, those votes coming from about 8 different countries.
Say what you like about relative crime rates, and of guns "reducing crime". The fact is that of those sampled in countries outside the US, the vast majority do not want to see a US-style firearms proliferation in the country where they live.
-
What poll Nuke? All those results yielded what what a few responders on this board said. Hardly a random sampling of countries outside the USA. It was a vote, not a poll, and the results are worthless far as reaching any conclusion about what people in other countries think about gun laws. All we know is what the few responders thought at the time the question was asked.
Les
-
Originally posted by Leslie
What poll Nuke? All those results yielded what what a few responders on this board said. Hardly a random sampling of countries outside the USA. It was a vote, not a poll, and the results are worthless far as reaching any conclusion about what people in other countries think about gun laws. All we know is what the few responders thought at the time the question was asked.
Les
Poll, vote, question....whatever.....it was used as a poll and the whole thing was slanted. Beet1e says the question had nothing to do with the US and our gun laws, but then he used the results to conclude that people didn't want US style gun laws.
-
Yes, I got that impression too. That's why I'm saying any such conclusion is without merit, done in the fashion it was. Not to say the idea is a bad one, but a real poll would be expensive and involve much research. A random sampling of a cross section of all socio-economic levels in each country would need to be made (minimum of 30 people in each grouping.) This could be done by mail if you had the addresses. Or go knocking on doors, which would be risky and possibly illegal in some countries. May be hard to get permits to do that as well, especially considering the nature of the poll.
If it took too long, the poll would time itself out and the results would be full of errors. The questions asked on the poll should be checked ahead of time by a qualified linguist or two, to make certain they are not skewed. Even the order in which questions are presented could skew the results.
There would probably be a large margin of error due to mistrust on behalf of people simply not answering the poll.
In my opinion, conducting such a survey would be a Herculean effort if not impossible. However, results from such would be scientific and accurate, for whoever had the fortitude to do it.
Les
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Poll, vote, question....whatever.....it was used as a poll and the whole thing was slanted. Beet1e says the question had nothing to do with the US and our gun laws, but then he used the results to conclude that people didn't want US style gun laws.
That remark was merely an observation made some time after the original question was put. I could have put it another way, and you're just clutching at straws to have seized on that particular remark. It was not a conclusion; the results were still coming in. I don't care what you or Leslie or Lazs think about the way I asked the question. To do a poll in the fashion Leslie is suggesting would involve visiting every country in the world - LOL!
I don't know why you guys are getting so bent out of shape over this. It wasn't any sort of official poll. It was just me asking a harmless question on the BBS. What's the big freaking deal about that? And why are we discussing this here instead of in the thread concerned?
-
Originally posted by beet1e
And why are we discussing this here instead of in the thread concerned?
because you brought it up?
-
"To do a poll in the fashion Leslie is suggesting would involve visiting every country in the world - LOL!"
I didn't say that exactly, but I can understand how I may have given that impression.
Polling is a science. That was impressed on me in freshman English class at Auburn. My first essay involved me taking a poll as a class assignment option. The instructor was very adament about the method used, and I guess that's why I feel that way. But she was right, and although I have rudimentary knowledge about grammar (Spanish degree) and one graduate level transformational grammar course under my belt, all I know is linguistics is very complex, but darn interesting.
Hehe, I racked my brain trying to find linguistic proof (on the net) your simple question was actually four questions imo, though I can't prove it. So maybe it did me some good...it hurts to think...LOL. What I discovered is that questions are some of the most complex sentence structures of all. Even the experts have a hard time analyzing questions. The rules are fascinating...every sentence is broken down to its separate parts and analyzed, it's almost mathematical in its precision, and there are many varients of sentence meaning depending on where the words are placed. That is uncanny to me.
So, I can't make a argument with you based on that. If I could I would.:D
Carry on Beet1e. I disagree with you most of the time. I disagree this time, but I'm not bent out of shape too much, considering it's you.
I enjoy reading your posts, but not the ones about refering to my countrymen as idiots and nuts, especially when I agree with them.
:D :D :D
Les
-
Hehe! Hello Leslie. :) Don't become a semantics banana like Lazs. If you would look at the answers people gave, at least a dozen gave a simple YES or NO. Seems that THEY realised it was a single question even if a scenario with four criteria was described within that question.
As for NUKE, your still an idiot, but I sort of like you. ;)
-
beetle said that that the poll had nothing to do with U.S. and then in his eagerness to fill his agenda he concludes this.... "Say what you like about relative crime rates, and of guns "reducing crime". The fact is that of those sampled in countries outside the US, the vast majority do not want to see a US-style firearms proliferation in the country where they live.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------"
from his flawed and slanted poll. If the U.S. was not the target then why the bizzare conclussion...And... If it was.... why mischaracterize the U.S. laws on firearms...
Oh wait... I guess it would have to be...to slant things enough to get the desired results.
If all those eurors got one question out of that "poll" and are on the same page as beetle then it is a strange place over there indeed...more than simple language gap.
lazs
-
Lazs! Cheer up, matey! Today sees in the new month, and Kalifornia will permit you to buy one more Makarov. :D