Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: AKcurly on September 06, 2004, 05:20:15 AM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/South/09/05/game.shooting.ap/index.html
I'm sure the shooters are now very sorry they had access to a pistol. Won't do the marine & his buddy much good though.
curly
-
Yes, the gun magically floated up in the air, over to those two guys and shot them itself. Nope, no one helped the gun along at all. Nope, no one.
-
And if the shooters had killed somone driving drunk in the parking lot, I'm sure they'd be sorry that they had access to alcohol and a vehicle.
Makes a lot of sense to me. I guess alcohol should be banned, since it kills so many people all by itself with no input from people as well.
-
It could just as easily been a baseball bat, knife or stick with a nail. The man premeditated the murders for revenge, he would have found another weapon if a gun was unavailable.
Sad situation, but the gun was not to blame.
-
Posted by NUKE
Makes a lot of sense to me. I guess alcohol should be banned, since it kills so many people all by itself with no input from people as well.
alcohol wasnt the reason those two people were shot it was because they beat the watermelon outa that guy and he took the "revenge" a little to far. yea he had no right shooting them but what right do they have by beating the watermelon outa him. they should have called the cops and let them deal with it instead of taking care of it themselfs.
He returned later and asked Smith where to find the men who had beaten him, saying he had "a .38 Smith & Wesson for them."
Smith, who said the man appeared intoxicated, pointed in the direction of the victims and heard gunshots a short time later
oh thats real fugin smart he should have just pulled the trigger himself he should of just said i dont know then find the two guys and tell them to leave cuz that guys back and he has a gun.
-
I really enjoy these gun arguments, pointless but very entertaining.
...-Gixer
-
Ever see the episode of "All in the Family" where Archie and his daughter Gloria are discussing gun control?
Gloria: "12,000 people are killed by handguns every year!"
Archie: "Would it make ya feel better if they were pushed outta windows?"
-
I think the point he is making is the access to a pistol, no access = no shooting to death.
It could just as easily been a baseball bat, knife or stick with a nail. The man premeditated the murders for revenge, he would have found another weapon if a gun was unavailable.
Yep your probably right, though I doubt attacking a Marine with a pointy stick would result in the Marines death, plus anything less than a gun at least equals the playing field and gives the target a fighting chance.
I dont believe in the macho line implied in a lot of these gun threads, how pro gun implies big hairy balls and anti equals limp wristed girly men. If this incident is anything to go by, the opposite is most likely true. But as a card carrying, hand wringing, liberal Euro trash tree hugger, I guess I would say that.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
It could just as easily been a baseball bat, knife or stick with a nail.
Sad situation, but the gun was not to blame.
hm i disagree here, the things you pointed out (i.e. baseball bat, knife)
needs close contact to the victim. And it is possible to stop the attacker
with 2 or more people just with the hands.
With guns its a different situation, you can kill from distance, fast and
alot people. Its very difficult to stop such an attacker with just your hands.
I'm not against guns, but saying you can kill with knifes, cars ect.
the same way is wrong.
R
Gh0stFT
-
Article doesn't say if he was a registered gun owner. Bet you he wasn't.
-
As Archie Bunker once said "Would it make you any happier if they was thrown out of windows?"
You can also kill at a distance with rocks
As another comedian once said
"If guns are responsible for killing people then my pencil is responsible for my spelling mistakes"
-
Originally posted by Gh0stFT
hm i disagree here, the things you pointed out (i.e. baseball bat, knife)
needs close contact to the victim. And it is possible to stop the attacker
with 2 or more people just with the hands.
With guns its a different situation, you can kill from distance, fast and
alot people. Its very difficult to stop such an attacker with just your hands.
I'm not against guns, but saying you can kill with knifes, cars ect.
the same way is wrong.
R
Gh0stFT
http://www.komo-am.com/stories/32903.htm
-
Guns dont kill people, rappers do.
-
The more guns, the easier it is to take/get one and shoot someone.
Shooting is also much easier way to harm someone than a baseball bat or a knife and it is much harder to stop someone with a gun than with a bat/knife.
Guns do also have a much better range.
Needs less effort and less thinking with a gun.
Was it the shooter or guns causing the harm, theres no denying with the fact that more guns causes more shooting of people, just because being easier to obtain and easier to use for killing than a knife... no need to go up & personal or get tackled by someone.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The more guns, the easier it is to take/get one and shoot someone.
Shooting is also much easier way to harm someone than a baseball bat or a knife and it is much harder to stop someone with a gun than with a bat/knife.
Guns do also have a much better range.
Needs less effort and less thinking with a gun.
99.9 % of the criminals agree with you! That's why I carry. :)
-
Having responded to more assault situations than I care to remember, I disagree with those who think it's not hard to hurt, main or kill with anything other than a firearm. On the face of it it sounds plausible that a person or persons could defend from a bat or knife but it simply doesn't work that way in the real world. You are welcome to believe what you want but I went to far too many of these to have any confidence in that position.
My training as a defensive tactice instructor also proved that a knife attacker has a better than even chance of killing a gun wielding person if the distance between the two of them is 21 feet or less.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
The more guns, the easier it is to take/get one and shoot someone.
Shooting is also much easier way to harm someone than a baseball bat or a knife and it is much harder to stop someone with a gun than with a bat/knife.
Guns do also have a much better range.
Needs less effort and less thinking with a gun.
Was it the shooter or guns causing the harm, theres no denying with the fact that more guns causes more shooting of people, just because being easier to obtain and easier to use for killing than a knife... no need to go up & personal or get tackled by someone.
It takes even less effort to drive drunk and kill someone with your 2000 pound missile, yet alcohol is not banned. More people die from alcohol than guns.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
http://www.komo-am.com/stories/32903.htm
dead ist dead,
but nothing changed here Rip, with guns its much easer,if someone attacks me with a knife, i still have a good chance to protect myself just with my hands.
(sure it depends on your fitness and combat expirience).
But you cant do anything if someone shot at you from distance,
even close distance.
DREDIOCK killing with rocks from distance ??? you joking right?
what comparison to guns is that.
the first rock should do it, if not better run. lol
-
The question begs, why didn't this knife assailent just get a gun? Its easier, ya know. ;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
As Archie Bunker once said "Would it make you any happier if they was thrown out of windows?"
You can also kill at a distance with rocks
As another comedian once said
"If guns are responsible for killing people then my pencil is responsible for my spelling mistakes"
"If guns kill people, I can blame misspelled words on my pencil"
Larry the Cable Guy
-
the victims had been tossing a football when a car drove recklessly in a parking lot packed with football fans. He said the men pulled the blond-haired driver from his car and beat him, pushing his head into the dirt.
gun issue aside. does it bother anybody else that lately the term 'victim' and the guy that took the most damage seem to mean the same thing.
******************************
DANGER RANT WARNING!!!
******************************
it used to be that to be a victim you had to be afflicted with a situation that was not of your own making.
the guy over-reacted (major understatement), but the 'victims' initiated the confrontation. 2 guys (you wouldn't think a marine would require help to rough up a drunk football fan) drag a man from his car, beat him, and then somehow they become the victim.
it's a very similar mentality to what I've seen in school 'discipline' and our legal system. say 2 kids get in a fight in school, when I was a kid (at least in grade school, I started noticing the changing attitudes midway through HS), regardless of who won (as long as you didn't beat the guy to the point of hospitalization after he went down), the guy who started the fight was punished, or if it was more or less mutual they both were.
now, the winner is punished. my son had a couple fights where the teachers clearly saw the other kid hit my son first, on one occasion the kid came up and just started swinging with no warning or apparent reason, on another it was escalated from an argument, the other kid started the argument and took the first swing. in both of these cases he made a bit of a mess of the other kids- nothing serious, split lips, bloody noses, eyes swollen shut, mostly a lot of blood and not much real damage.
I go to the school and the teachers lay out what had happened. I'm thinking, "OK, the other kid hit him, he defended himself. why am I here exactly?"
nope, my son gets a couple days of suspension. the other kids get no suspension, no school punishment of any kind.
I see this in the legal system as well. things like the now-infamous women with her cup of McD's coffee. the whole issue wasn't about who's fault was it that she carried a cop of hot coffee with her crotch while driving, it was all about how hurt she was.
I'm completely in support of people getting appropriate damages for things that happened to them from another's negligence. put to be able to get money from someone because being stupid din't work out for you today just doesn't sit well with me.
I wonder what message they think they are sending with these kinds of attitudes.
losers are to be pitied and protected, even if they are the cause of the situation?
or, it's OK to start problems, just don't win when it gets out of hand? (completely backward from the "don't start any trouble, but make sure the guy who did won't look forward to trying again", that I was taught.
-
Hmm... booze and beatings and reckless driving and a sports event and... if it weren't for the handgun...
you are talking handguns only right?
mav is right.. the deaths and maimings I have seen up close were all fists or clubs or knives. I have seen someone fire alll six shots from a revolver and miss everyone.
If the original assaulters had simply run from the handgun then they wojld not have been hit most likely.
now... if handguns were illegal but hunting rifles or especially shotguns were still legal... there would have been no chance for survival for either victim.
And yes... I wish these guys would have never did what they did... any of em... but it is no more avoidable than drunk driving. it is illegal to shoot people for no reason... it is illegal to drive drunk and it is illegal to be drunk in public and it is illegal to assauult people but..
these things still happen once in a while. Sometimes folks break the law.
so I ask... would anyone here feel better if the victims/asaulters had been run over by the drunk or if he had beaten them dead or crippled with a pipe or... shot them with a shotgun or ought 6?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
so I ask... would anyone here feel better if the victims/asaulters had been run over by the drunk or if he had beaten them dead or crippled with a pipe or... shot them with a shotgun or ought 6?
lazs
exactly my point Laz, though you made it much better than I did as usual.
-
Isn’t that the same as asking Do you still beat your wife?
My argument here isn’t that bad things don’t happen without guns just that in this case, guns made a bad situation even worse and people died. I don’t accept that you could swap out the handgun in this situation and replace it with a car, knife, baseball bat or whatever and still get the same result. Chucking rocks at a Marine, or trying to push a Marine out of a window somehow dont seem as perilous for the Marine as firing a handgun at him, whatever the range.
So yeah, guns do kill people.
-
Originally posted by Chortle
So yeah, guns do kill people.
By themselves? Ours is an arguement of social behavior.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
By themselves? Ours is an arguement of social behavior.
Rip, you dummy....don't you know that inanimate obects kill people and that peope have nothing to do with it?
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Having responded to more assault situations than I care to remember, I disagree with those who think it's not hard to hurt, main or kill with anything other than a firearm. On the face of it it sounds plausible that a person or persons could defend from a bat or knife but it simply doesn't work that way in the real world. You are welcome to believe what you want but I went to far too many of these to have any confidence in that position.
My training as a defensive tactice instructor also proved that a knife attacker has a better than even chance of killing a gun wielding person if the distance between the two of them is 21 feet or less.
Firearm is a much better choice for hit & run type murders than a knife, let alone a baseball bat.
Especially if your target is armed.
I haven't either heard of many store keepers who would've put down an armed robber with a knife.
A gun also gives the person a higher self confidence.
Besides, if knives are better, why do people need guns for self defense? :D
Might as well rid the guns then.
Originally posted by NUKE
It takes even less effort to drive drunk and kill someone with your 2000 pound missile, yet alcohol is not banned. More people die from alcohol than guns.
Okey.. lets give them RPG's, mines and grenades.
You never know when someones going to assault someones home with a 2000 pound truck.
Also might be better to stop the assaulters cold on the front yard, than getting into a close combat... lay the mines & prepare the nades.
-
That fact is you can't outlaw everything that can be used for murder. Cars. Knives. Planes. Bricks. Rocks. Bats. Golf Clubs.
Go after the criminals. You won't get my guns.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
As Archie Bunker once said "Would it make you any happier if they was thrown out of windows?"
So, the gun nuts aspire to attain the wisdom of Archie Bunker.
lol..that kind of figures. :rofl
-
guns dont kill people, they just make it a helluva lot easier for people to kill people...
-
Originally posted by Ben Franklin
Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither
to be safe or free.
-
Originally posted by Curval
So, the gun nuts aspire to attain the wisdom of Archie Bunker.
lol..that kind of figures. :rofl
Gun nuts? I wouldn't describe people that wish to hold on to their right to own guns as nuts myself.
Every person I know that owns a gun ( just about everyone I know) is a rational, law abiding citizen.
In fact, a few people I have known that do not own guns have all been arested for driving drunk.
-
Guns permit impulse killing. Many of us have been in situations where we were angry enough to shoot someone. Had we had a gun in our hand, no doubt a few of us would have done it.
Bats/rocks/whatever can be dodged. People armed with rocks/bats can easily be disarmed. Bats/rocks don't lend themselves well to impulse killing. They might work great in a one on one situation, but then we're talking premeditation.
curly
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Guns permit impulse killing. Many of us have been in situations where we were angry enough to shoot someone. Had we had a gun in our hand, no doubt a few of us would have done it.
Bats/rocks/whatever can be dodged. People armed with rocks/bats can easily be disarmed. Bats/rocks don't lend themselves well to impulse killing. They might work great in a one on one situation, but then we're talking premeditation.
curly
Then you should be tried and executed. A criminal is a criminal. You won't take away my weapons because someone else is a killer.
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Then you should be tried and executed. A criminal is a criminal. You won't take away my weapons because someone else is a killer.
That's one of the problems, dude. What sentence do you think the brothers will receive? At best, it will be murder 2. They'll be on the street in 5 years, even money.
The murderers probably aren't criminals (in the normal sense.) I would wager they were drunk & angry. Drunks aren't well known as paragons of reason or responsibility.
IMO, gun laws will have zero effect on habitual criminals, but they would stop this type of senseless murder.
curly
-
Then attack the legal system if you don't think the sentence is harsh enough. That's hardly my fault.
IMO, gun laws will have zero effect on habitual criminals, but they would stop this type of senseless murder.
That's like saying you shouldn't be allowed to own a car because your neighbor drinks and drives. Idiocy. Sell your nanny state somewhere else. I'm not buying.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
99.9 % of the criminals agree with you! That's why I carry. :)
So you carry a gun because they carry guns, and they carry guns because they carry guns..They carry guns because they carry guns.... Sounds like a great model for society, I wonder why more countries don't deploy it.
- Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
- The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
- American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Gixer
- Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
...-Gixer
117 Americans die each day from automobiles.
-
Drunk drives usually doesn't jump in the car just to go out and drive over someone on purpose.
Drugs are illegal, but people drive on drugs too.. they often use guns too, which aren't too hard to get in USA due to large amounts of guns.
Illegal or legal guns, the amount of legal guns reflects in the amount of illegal guns.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Drunk drives usually doesn't jump in the car just to go out and drive over someone on purpose.
Drugs are illegal, but people drive on drugs too.. they often use guns too, which aren't too hard to get in USA due to large volume.
Illegal or legal guns, the volume of legal guns reflects in the amount of illegal guns.
Can someone translate this for me?
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Then attack the legal system if you don't think the sentence is harsh enough. That's hardly my fault.
That's like saying you shouldn't be allowed to own a car because your neighbor drinks and drives. Idiocy. Sell your nanny state somewhere else. I'm not buying.
I'm reasonably happy with the legal system. I don't want to see drunks executed for inappropriate behavior (including murder.)
Idiocy? Now the stretch from "2 disgruntled individuals kill 2 men" to "shouldn't be allowed to own a car because your neighbor drinks and drives", well now, that's idiocy. :)
curly
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Can someone translate this for me?
Did you lose your English primer, Martlet? What exactly didn't you understand?
curly
-
Originally posted by Martlet
117 Americans die each day from automobiles.
LMFAO what a refrence to make.
LOL too funny, think of another. :rofl
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Maverick
My training as a defensive tactice instructor also proved that a knife attacker has a better than even chance of killing a gun wielding person if the distance between the two of them is 21 feet or less.
That's amazing Maverick. How does that work? (given two people who are equally prepared to use their weapons?)
- Genuinely interested. What's stopping the bloke with the gun just shooting before the knifeman gets too close?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Idiocy? Now the stretch from "2 disgruntled individuals kill 2 men" to "shouldn't be allowed to own a car because your neighbor drinks and drives", well now, that's idiocy. :)
curly
Not in the least bit. Explain to me how I shouldn't be able to own a gun because you can't refrain from shooting your neighbor is different than my not being able to own a car because I can't refrain from driving drunk.
Did you lose your English primer, Martlet? What exactly didn't you understand?
Any of it. I have absolutely zero idea what he is trying to say.
LMFAO what a refrence to make.
LOL too funny, think of another.
Funny? Maybe. Accurate? Definitely.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
So you carry a gun because they carry guns, and they carry guns because they carry guns..They carry guns because they carry guns.... Sounds like a great model for society, I wonder why more countries don't deploy it.
- Every day, more than 80 Americans die from gun violence.
- The rate of firearm deaths among kids under age 15 is almost 12 times higher in the United States than in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
- American kids are 16 times more likely to be murdered with a gun, 11 times more likely to commit suicide with a gun, and nine times more likely to die from a firearm accident than children in 25 other industrialized countries combined.
...-Gixer
Maybe you could explain then, why states that allow citizens to carry and conceal, have a lower % of violent crimes than that of states that do not allow conceal and carry? Naturally we're talking registered gun owners who are properly permitted to conceal and carry.
-
That's amazing Maverick. How does that work? (given two people who are equally prepared to use their weapons?)
- Genuinely interested. What's stopping the bloke with the gun just shooting before the knifeman gets too close?
Ravs
I thought that too. I think he's referring to the Tueller Defense Link (http://vettechick.com/tuellerdefensive.htm), I just googled it so know nothing beyond that it relates to a holstered weapon.
-
Extremely interesting article, thanks for posting, chortle.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Maybe you could explain then, why states that allow citizens to carry and conceal, have a lower % of violent crimes than that of states that do not allow conceal and carry? Naturally we're talking registered gun owners who are properly permitted to conceal and carry.
I'm sure the percentage of crime,injuries deaths relating to guns in those states still far exceeds other industrilised countries. How does it compare to Japan for instance where gun ownership is almost non existent?
Saying that gun ownership reduces crime is a desperate argument.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Curval
So, the gun nuts aspire to attain the wisdom of Archie Bunker.
lol..that kind of figures. :rofl
Im not a gun nut.
In fact I dont even own a gun.
Not yet anyway. Adn the only reason I say that is Im thinking of starting to collect antique firearms
But I whole heartedly support the right to own one.
Thing is anyone who wants to kill can.
Anyone who wants a gun badly enough can get one legally or not.
Hell for that matter I can make a crude gun using nothing more then items I have hanging around my workshop in about 1/2 hour
Gun laws are nothing more then feelgood laws that accomplish little more then to punish law abiding people from having them.
The VAST majority of gun crimes are done by people who do not legally own them. So whats the point in the laws?
Criminals couldnt care less about gun laws or any other kind of law for that matter.
Thats why they are called Criminals.
-
quote:Originally posted by Martlet
117 Americans die each day from automobiles.
Originally posted by Gixer
LMFAO what a refrence to make.
LOL too funny, think of another. :rofl
...-Gixer
Actually I think its a damn good comparison and a good example of the silliness of gun laws.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I'm sure the percentage of crime,injuries deaths relating to guns in those states still far exceeds other industrilised countries. How does it compare to Japan for instance where gun ownership is almost non existent?
Saying that gun ownership reduces crime is a desperate argument.
...-Gixer
different countries have a completely different culture, which is likely to have a bigger effect on crime/violence stats than gun laws.
as far as your 'desperate argument' comment, I guess falling back on the truth would seem desperate to sum. :confused:
not only do areas with more restrictions on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens, have more crime, and more violent crime.
but there have been a couple smaller cities (one was here in Oregon, not sure where the others were) that passed laws a few years back (it's been awhile, maybe 15 years), these laws required the head of household to own a fire-arm, unless otherwise prohibited by law. in ever case the crime rates dropped. not huge drops (since for you to be able to pass a law like that you'd have to have a population that was very supportive and likely already owned guns) but consistently and in every city that tried this. home invasion crimes, like burglaries became almost non-existent.
-
Chortle,
You got it on the nose.
Ravs, reaction time and the inability of the average person to percieve the threat and react properly actually makes the distance and time increase. The 1.5 seconds is for a defender EXPECTING and knowing the attack is coming. For a defender who is not in that particular mindset it gets worse.
Been there and got the T-shirt thanks to my heavy coat and bullet resistant vest.
-
OK Maverick, I didn't want to jump in but it seemed pretty likely. Anyhow, sincerely the best of luck with that mate, I dunno how you do that day in day out.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
I'm sure the percentage of crime,injuries deaths relating to guns in those states still far exceeds other industrilised countries. How does it compare to Japan for instance where gun ownership is almost non existent?
Saying that gun ownership reduces crime is a desperate argument.
...-Gixer
Lets stick to one country, one culture at a time, shall we? Why don't we just compare it to something rediculous like New Zealand or Japan? ;)
Apples to apples, gun crime is down here because more prudent citizens have them, thats a fact you can't argue, so might as well compare an apple to an orange since you can't win this argument. ;)
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
quote:Originally posted by Martlet
117 Americans die each day from automobiles.
Actually I think its a damn good comparison and a good example of the silliness of gun laws.
Casualties by automobiles are mostly due to accidents.
Casualties by firearms are mostly due to intentional shooting.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Casualties by automobiles are mostly due to accidents.
Casualties by firearms are mostly due to intentional shooting.
Really? Could you show me those stats?
And....so? what's your point?
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Casualties by automobiles are mostly due to accidents.
Casualties by firearms are mostly due to intentional shooting.
Still,
Less people die by being shot intentionally then die in cars accidentally
80 is a damn low number as far as Im concerned
Probably ranks pretty low on the daily causes of death scale.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Still,
Less people die by being shot intentionally then die in cars accidentally
80 is a damn low number as far as Im concerned
Probably ranks pretty low on the daily causes of death scale.
Tenth (http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html)
-
Originally posted by Martlet
Tenth (http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/death_stats.html)
Like I said, pretty low
1.2%
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Like I said, pretty low
1.2%
Yep. Cars kill more people. We need a ban on those.
-
not sure what you gun nuts (people that go nuts when they think about firearms want here...
Are you saying that there would be no homicides in America if we got rid of all the handguns or... all the firearms? are you saying that there would be less homicides? are you saying that shotguns are ok? huinting rifles? no guns at all except for the elite or... like the euros... the ruling class?
If so... what is your reasoning? what is your data? seems that irf states with right to carry laws have lowered their crime and that if firearms prevent from 2-3 million crimes a year (according to the FBI) then.... if even a fraction of a percent of those prevented crimes were potential homicides... we would have an increase in both crime and homicides.... just as the concealled carry states prove that the oppossite is true.. the more guns the less crime.. make it severe penalties for crime with firearms and easy for citizens to have em... best of both worlds
so... other than the aura of the thing or your "feelings" where is your data?
The U.S. is a dangerous place... it is less dangerous when citizens are allowed to be armed... it is also less dangerous when criminals have added time to crimes using firearms... less and less criminals use firearms in crime every year and more and more citizens use firearms to prevent crime every year..
sorry if it doesn't agree with your "feelings" but... them is the facts.
and yep... drunks are gonna abuse firearms... just like they abuse drugs and cars and alcohol and knives and anything else. we just have to live with that... nothing is free and risk free that is of such a huge benifiet. Just as driving is.
I think a lot of you are emotional children "all of us have wanted to kill someone at one time or another" and project that on to others. If we have no self control then we are lost and no "law" or "ban" or loss of freedom can save us.
lazs
-
This whole car thing is so stupid. Just because cars kill people in accidents that makes it okay for a simialr number to be killed with guns? Is that what you are saying?
THAT is an absurd argument.
What I find interesting though are the number of pro-gun posters who don't actually own guns.
What is the point of standing so firmly for something that you don't chose to be a part of yourself? I don't get it.
One of the primary reasons, it is argued here consistantly, is that crimminals are armed therefore it is basically irresponsible not to arm yourself. This is certainly the jist of Benjamin Franklin's quoted post.
I'd feel rather foolish not owning a gun and aruging that particular case.
Aparently a genocide is possible. Zombies could arise at any time.
For heavans sake guys, get with the program.
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Casualties by automobiles are mostly due to accidents.
Casualties by firearms are mostly due to intentional shooting.
absolutely.
so if you want to ban guns because 'guns kill people', then you shouldn't even be wondering about guns until you deal with the car problem.
you yourself said that in most cases involving a gun death, a person made a deliberate decision to end another person.
while, as you say, car deaths mostly happen complete against the will or intention of the owner/operator of the machine.
I don't seriously think we should ban cars, and I doubt any others meant that either.
the point is (hey Curval, this is why the car analogy is legitimate)- that if you want to go on some crusade to ban 'evil machines', then cars should be much higher on your list than guns. they kill way more people and in the vast majority of cases the deaths where completely unintentional.
if you can see how stupid it is to ban cars, than why can't you see how asinine it is to make an even more extreme reach to ban guns?
IMO the reason many can see the stupidity of banning cars but can't carry that logic over to guns is simply that they have grown up around cars all of their life, they know that they are, for the most part, safe if well maintained and operated with care. we have also come to except that while, by being careful, responsible, aware, doing regular maintenance, and not taking stupid risks we can greatly reduce our risk of injury or death in an automobile, there is always going to be some risk because we can't control whether or not the other guy is exercising the same care and responsibility. we recognize that unless the other guy has abused his rights there is no reason anyone should be taking them away. if however he drives recklessly, or puts other in danger then we take his right to drive away, not everyone in the country, just his.
to those of us who grew up owning guns it's the exact same thing. I received my first .22 at 5yrs old (they didn't allow my to keep the bolt with the rifle, in the rack in my room, until I was 13.) I've been safely operating firearms for about 10 years longer than I have been driving.
when I hear the ban guns talk, I'm struck with the same amount of total shock a the shear level of stupidity of the suggestion as I would if you tried to make a case for banning cars.
the simple fact is cars are much more dangerous. they don't require a decision to make them kill. they are truly the more 'evil machine' of the 2. they just freak some of you out because most of your exposure is from Hollywood or the news (that reports every shooting, even if nobody is hit. yet only reports traffic accidents if they are extreme or block traffic).
-
Originally posted by Curval
This whole car thing is so stupid. Just because cars kill people in accidents that makes it okay for a simialr number to be killed with guns? Is that what you are saying?
THAT is an absurd argument.
What I find interesting though are the number of pro-gun posters who don't actually own guns.
What is the point of standing so firmly for something that you don't chose to be a part of yourself? I don't get it.
One of the primary reasons, it is argued here consistantly, is that crimminals are armed therefore it is basically irresponsible not to arm yourself. This is certainly the jist of Benjamin Franklin's quoted post.
I'd feel rather foolish not owning a gun and aruging that particular case.
Aparently a genocide is possible. Zombies could arise at any time.
For heavans sake guys, get with the program.
Its not stupid. The point is More people die from car accidents then they do by guns intentionally.
Not that its ok. It just the number is so small.
If people were running around wholesale just blowing each other away left and right I'd agree that there should be something more done. But its still very much the exeption.
Thousands and thousands and thousands of gun owners in this country. And thousands upon thousands of news guns beeing bought every single day.
And a whole 80 people get shot?
Hardly what I would call an epidemic. Or genoside or even anything remotely resembling either.
And I do not feel foolish at all by argueing for a gun when I do not personally own one. Not even a little bit
Just because I may not choose to have one doesnt mean that I do not fully beleve in the right for others to own one.
As for those that choose to own guns because criminals do.
that is their right.
When the government cannot protect the people the people must protect themselves.
And though not through lack of trying the government proves time and time again it is for the most part incapable of protecting the people.
Plus I do not beleive in giving up rights. Not single one for security(usually a false sence of). Or any other reason for that matter
And that ranges from gun control to the patriot act.
Zombies have already arisen. They come in the form of clowns that think just because a few people get a hangnail there needs to be a law passed to protect everyone from hangnails.
-
Originally posted by Curval
One of the primary reasons, it is argued here consistantly, is that crimminals are armed therefore it is basically irresponsible not to arm yourself. This is certainly the jist of Benjamin Franklin's quoted post.
I'd feel rather foolish not owning a gun and aruging that particular case.
whats so foolish in supporting another's rights or freedoms that you don't need or choose to exercise?
There are plenty of whites who support anti-discrimination laws, and men who support abortion, there are even people who live their whole lives without ever leaving the town they were born in and I don't think their supporting the right to travel freely is foolish.
if you don't stand up for the other guy when his rights are being taken away, there'll likely be nobody left to give support when somebody gets around to taking yours.
-
"The Kremlin official, Aslanbek Aslakhanov, said in an interview that more than 20 elite Russian commandos were killed in the day-long battle that began Friday, many of them accidentally shot in the back by armed civilian vigilantes who rushed to the school to fight for their children. The previously undisclosed death toll, he said, surpasses any in the history of the famed Alpha and Vympel special forces units."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5926631/
-
Without a gun you are a defenseless girly man.
Without a gun in a country that allows guns you are a very stupid defensless girly man.
Not really my opinion, but merely an extension of lazs' logic.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Lets stick to one country, one culture at a time, shall we? Why don't we just compare it to something rediculous like New Zealand or Japan? ;)
Apples to apples, gun crime is down here because more prudent citizens have them, thats a fact you can't argue, so might as well compare an apple to an orange since you can't win this argument. ;)
It just isn't worth the argument or time as your so single minded and closed off towards any other arguments. I'd have more luck trying to convence you and other pro gun guys that the world is flat. Then I would of other countries social models towards guns and gun ownership.
Plus the cut n paste threads are very boring.
...-Gixer
-
thanks curval but I am quite capable of speaking for myself.
Lots of hand wringing here and people saying basicly that if you don't climb rocks that you have no right to defend the right of others to do so... even tho you, or someone you know may someday wish to.
lots of touchy feely "well, guns are just bad and point out that we aren't quite civilized yet" rhetoric... Lot's of "bad aura" stuff..
No data to suggest that there would be any less crime or even less accidents or even less homicides. All the data points to the reverse..
basiocly... because they are afraid of themselves or of firearms... or... their country nuetered em... these people would make life worse for ev everyone including themselves.
not a decent logical antio gun arguement in the bunch so far..
But... what about it anti gun nuts? do we ban all guns or just handguns? or... what?
lazs
-
oh and... I don't think I want to trade our overall crime rate for yours in nz gixer... if we had your citizens our crime rate would probly double. or....
you guys would learn to behave better when you got here and confronted armed citizens.
lazs
-
Well speak then....do you agree with what I said?
This is it:
Without a gun you are a defenseless girly man.
Without a gun in a country that allows guns you are a very stupid defensless girly man.
I doubt you will agree with it now and as per your usual posting method you will now turn to shooting trash and collecting guns as your basis for why everyone has the right to bear arms.
-
TH3 MACHINES AR3 T6kin9 0v3r!!!!!
-
curval... without a gun in a lot of instances you will be helpless. With a gun you will have a better chance of survival in a confrontation.
but...
curly is pointing out it seems that data and scientific method are meaningless (at least when it comes to guns) and that the real proof of balance lies in sensationalism. if you can find an incident where a gun was misused and created or made a situation worse... then... logicaly, guns should be banned since this proves that human nature is such that we have to be protected from it and... that guns are evil.
in that spirit.... would you all agree that if I can sensationalize, show two instances, where guns were used to save life then.... that would prove that I am twice as right as curly?
lazs
-
"Casualties by automobiles are mostly due to accidents. "
"Accidents" are very very rare.
That is, unless you define "accident" as "unintentional", which is not really accurate. Most traffic crashes result from negligence or recklessness, which can hardly be called "accidental".
Or....do you consider it an "accident" that John Doe just had to be gabbing on his cell phone (to use a current popular example) instead of paying attention to the road? Or is it somehow not his fault when he decided that he's above the law and drives 15 over the speed limit then promptly loses control on a curve and crashes?
True "accidents" are very very rare. Some would argue that they don't exist at all.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Curval
Well speak then....do you agree with what I said?
This is it:
Without a gun you are a defenseless girly man.
Without a gun in a country that allows guns you are a very stupid defensless girly man.
I doubt you will agree with it now and as per your usual posting method you will now turn to shooting trash and collecting guns as your basis for why everyone has the right to bear arms.
it's not choosing to own a gun that makes you a girly-man. it's being willing to give up your own freedom and (more importantly) requiring others to surender theirs for your perception of safety.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
"The Kremlin official, Aslanbek Aslakhanov, said in an interview that more than 20 elite Russian commandos were killed in the day-long battle that began Friday, many of them accidentally shot in the back by armed civilian vigilantes who rushed to the school to fight for their children. The previously undisclosed death toll, he said, surpasses any in the history of the famed Alpha and Vympel special forces units."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5926631/
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
thanks, great link! a 2-fer.
"The previously undisclosed death toll, he said, surpasses any in the history of the famed Alpha and Vympel special forces units."
Not only info that the A-team (and aperently they have picked up an allie in the V-team) has surfaced in russia. but cops being turned into zombies-
"Either he was interested in money or was under threat of death regularly and later probably he was zombied," Apiyev said.
it just don't get any better than that.
-
curval... ya gotta admit that it is pretty womanly to vote to ban things that you are afraid of. To take away someones human right to defend himself because orf your neurotic fears.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKcurly
Guns permit impulse killing. Many of us have been in situations where we were angry enough to shoot someone. Had we had a gun in our hand, no doubt a few of us would have done it.
There is no situation where "being angry" gives you cause to injure somesome, let alone shoot them.
This story, as well as many others like it is exatly the reason why I carry a gun. A handgun is meant to be a defensive weapon that can be used to protect yourself or others from immanent danger of severe bodily injury or death.
Had there been a LAW ABIDING handgun owner (carrying his/her gun) perhaps the shooter could have been stopped before the so called victims (the original bullies) were shot / killed.
The reason there were no LAW ABIDING citizens carrying a gun there is simple - NO GUNS ARE ALLOWED INTO SPORTING EVENTS - hence all the LAW ABIDING people left their guns at home.
----
-
I believe that curly thinks that the only thing stopping him from killing people when he is angry is that he doesn't have a gun handy.
very strange.
lazs
-
Think alot of you guys miss the point that is attemted to be made at times that you seem to have no understanding of what it must be like to live a daily life without the need to own a gun for protection. And still feel completely safe.
If I lived in the US I'd probably wan't to carry a gun as well.
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by lazs2
curval... ya gotta admit that it is pretty womanly to vote to ban things that you are afraid of. To take away someones human right to defend himself because orf your neurotic fears.
lazs
Your jaded opinion and logic, not mine.
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by AKcurly
Guns permit impulse killing. Many of us have been in situations where we were angry enough to shoot someone. Had we had a gun in our hand, no doubt a few of us would have done it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm starting to get it. your not so much afraid of guns as afraid of yourself, and afraid everyone else lacks your self control.
how does that work? how do you ever relax when this guy who you fear and don't trust is with you every where you go?
-
...and by the way, I'm not really happy about using this horrible event to "gain points" on a BBS, but here is what the BBC are saying about the armed civilians in the recent Russian school assault.
So much for armed students etc preventing another Columbine (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3634114.stm)
No mention of zombies to have a good chuckle about, just the facts that the civilians could well have CAUSED the slaughter of more people. How very manly of them.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
What I find interesting though are the number of pro-gun posters who don't actually own guns.
What is the point of standing so firmly for something that you don't chose to be a part of yourself? I don't get it.
If I may. I do not own a gun of any kind, but would defend the right of any one to bear arms. Why?
It is about rights. I see it as a fundamental right for anyone to be able to defend themselves, or at least, have that as a choice.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
If I may. I do not own a gun of any kind, but would defend the right of any one to bear arms. Why?
It is about rights. I see it as a fundamental right for anyone to be able to defend themselves, or at least, have that as a choice.
Ping make an excellent 9-iron.
You might actually need yours one day because you are in exactly the same "powerless womanly position" I am in if someone tries to hurt me or my family with a gun.
You guys almost sound like the female member of the Judean People's Front willing to fight for Stan's "right" to have babies in "Life of Brian".
:rofl
-
Curval, back away for a second. It is about choice. The freedom to own a gun. I can, if I want to. I just chose not to.
I grew up with guns. I am a very good shot. I just do not see the need to own one right now. It is a personal choice.
-
skuzzy.. that is all that I am saying really. one should be extremely careful of taking away someones freedom or human rights even if one is frieghtened or ignorant on the subject.
I believe that one of the fundamental philisophical differences on this board on the subject between the euros and the Americans is that Americans are born and bred of self reliance.... guns are fundamentaly a self reliant solution to self and family defense...
the oppossite is true in countries where government is seen to be the benefactor and "father".... if the government can't protect you then you certainly won't be able to...
There is also a distrust of government here in the U.S. that a lot of the euros don't really comprehend.
Russia does not have a recent history of armed citizens. I think that the situation described could not happen here. in fact... it doesn't. In American situations the civilians are a huge help in allmost every case.
I believe that Americans would try to resolve the situation if no help were available. I also believe that Americans step out of the way once organized help arrives..
lazs
-
(http://www.playawayweekends.com/tmp/yosemite_sam.jpg)
Yee-haww! im the rootinest tootinest cowboy in the wild wild west!!
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Curval, back away for a second. It is about choice. The freedom to own a gun. I can, if I want to. I just chose not to.
I grew up with guns. I am a very good shot. I just do not see the need to own one right now. It is a personal choice.
Please elaborate on why you don't own one right now. I'm curious.
-
Why would you think I need a reason not to own a gun?
-
Originally posted by lazs2 Russia does not have a recent history of armed citizens. I think that the situation described could not happen here. in fact... it doesn't. In American situations the civilians are a huge help in allmost every case.
I believe that Americans would try to resolve the situation if no help were available. I also believe that Americans step out of the way once organized help arrives..
lazs
I see...here are the FACTS coming out now.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Curval
Please elaborate on why you don't own one right now. I'm curious.
HT not paying him enough.
Maybe skuzzy works on comission every time he bans someone?
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Why would you think I need a reason not to own a gun?
Kids in the house maybe? Girlfriend/wife won't allow it?
Am I getting warm?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Think alot of you guys miss the point that is attemted to be made at times that you seem to have no understanding of what it must be like to live a daily life without the need to own a gun for protection. And still feel completely safe.
If I lived in the US I'd probably wan't to carry a gun as well.
...-Gixer
There are alot of people Including me that never want to own a gun but still thinks everyone that wants to should be able to have them,
I used to like guns when i was a child untill one of my friends shot himself when were teanagers. sense then, I don't like them.
But i believe should have the right to carry,
I dont feel less safe not carring one, But i dont think the country should be waiting for the police or someone else to save them.
Every one needs to be responisble to help them selves and help others, Unless we have soo many police around that we trip over them, there are going to be times when they cant help you or stop a crime.
guns just even the odds of the strong rulling the weak, you dont need to be stong to pull the trigger... you wont have the number of break ins to houses becasue the criminals wont be confdent that they are stonger then the ones who live there.
-
Originally posted by Curval
Kids in the house maybe? Girlfriend/wife won't allow it?
Am I getting warm?
Curval, you are working from an assumption that I have some desire to own a gun. Isn't it ok that I just do not care, either way, about owning one?
I have never asked my Wife about it, so I really do not know what her opinion is.
-
Girlfriend/wife won't allow it? = Girly Man? :p
-
curval... even if I didn't own guns or.... in situations where I don't have one... I feel much better knowing that there is a chance that someone in the crowd has taken on the responsibility to won one.
I say "I think" and "I belive" when talking about the Russian situation because nothing of that magnitutude has happened here but... I have data that shows that 1/3 of all school shootings were stopped by armed citizens and that 2million or so citizens a year stop crime with guns every year. enough data for you?
lazs
-
Lasz...book is half read on the bookshelf. I must confess, that it has so many statistics that I find it a bit boring, but I'll perservere and will post about it when I've finished.
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
Curval, you are working from an assumption that I have some desire to own a gun. Isn't it ok that I just do not care, either way, about owning one?
I have never asked my Wife about it, so I really do not know what her opinion is.
Most posters, in gun threads, use the fact that I am a subject, a potential victim, or girly man because I don't own a gun. I am a defenseless womanly human being apparently.
You guys in the US who don't own guns have the "choice" to own guns but don't.
Just how less of any of the above descriptions don't apply to you? You have the choice but choose not to. You are just as defenseless am I am in the face of an armed invader.
Arguing that you have the "right to defend yourself" as being a reason to own guns is strange to me given that you, and others, choose not to.
As I said before, it smacks of Stan's right to have babies.
-
lazs, you yourself admitted watching a guy unload six shots from close proximity and missing each time.
Luckily those shots didn't imbed themselves into an innocent bystander.
Now you are trying to say you feel better because OTHERS are armed even if you are not? So much for independence and self reliance.
You have some much trust yet you arm yourself to the teeth.
Weird.
-
Curval! How's it going?
bit pissed here!
When are you next over this way?
Ravs
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Think alot of you guys miss the point that is attemted to be made at times that you seem to have no understanding of what it must be like to live a daily life without the need to own a gun for protection. And still feel completely safe.
If I lived in the US I'd probably wan't to carry a gun as well.
...-Gixer
Gixer,
I answered this from perspective very early in this thread. You just chose to ignore it.
I own shotguns and rifles for hunting and handguns for sport. I do not own them because I feel the need to use them as protection. In fact, I wouldn't even be able to get to them in time if we did have a break in.
I feel safe every day. My kids walk to school on their own, and ride their bikes to their friends' houses. My wife walks our dog after dark, blah blah. I don't need to use paranoid rhetoric like yours to make that point.
Growing up, I never even owned a house key. Why? Because we never, and I mean never locked our door. Even when we left on vacation. The town I grew up in had 40,000 people at the time. Not a major metro, but big enough.
Hell, Curv's scooter gets stolen more often then we locked our doors when I was growing up, and he lives on a small island.
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Think alot of you guys miss the point that is attemted to be made at times that you seem to have no understanding of what it must be like to live a daily life without the need to own a gun for protection. And still feel completely safe.
If I lived in the US I'd probably wan't to carry a gun as well.
Gixer, if you're that ignorant about life in "the U.S.", you might do well to stay out of discussions about the goings on here.
-
Originally posted by Stringer
Hell, Curv's scooter gets stolen more often then we locked our doors when I was growing up, and he lives on a small island.
Once...and I recovered it, so technically none. :p
-
Originally posted by Curval
Most posters, in gun threads, use the fact that I am a subject, a potential victim, or girly man because I don't own a gun. I am a defenseless womanly human being apparently.
You guys in the US who don't own guns have the "choice" to own guns but don't.
Just how less of any of the above descriptions don't apply to you? You have the choice but choose not to. You are just as defenseless am I am in the face of an armed invader.
Arguing that you have the "right to defend yourself" as being a reason to own guns is strange to me given that you, and others, choose not to.
As I said before, it smacks of Stan's right to have babies.
You are working from a perspective I do not concur with. So I really cannot answer the question.
Just because I do not own a gun does not make me defenseless.
-
Originally posted by ravells
Curval! How's it going?
bit pissed here!
When are you next over this way?
Ravs
Hey m8.
:)
It's going good. Just involved in another gun thread, so..same old same old. ;)
Dunno when I'll get there but we will all have to hook up again. That was alot of fun.
-
Originally posted by Skuzzy
You are working from a perspective I do not concur with. So I really cannot answer the question.
Just because I do not own a gun does not make me defenseless.
It isn't my perspective...it is lazs and Ripsnort and all the manly gun-toting men of this BBS that make those claims. All of those accusations have been thrown at me due to the fact that I don't own a gun.
They will also disagree with you on the defenless thing. I jokingly mentioned I have a golf club that serves as my protection. Go have a look at all of the fun-poking that has produced since.
What is your secret...are you a ninjitsu black belt?
-
Curval, people call me names all the time (part of the job). It does not bother me. Everyone has an opinion.
You do not wish to own a gun, then that is fine by me.
-
What is the point of standing so firmly for something that you don't chose to be a part of yourself? I don't get it.
Some people feel strongly about what our constitutioon has to say, and not just how it applies to them. You couldn't possibly get it, unless you were an American.
-
Gixer your perspective on the U.S. is badly skewed. Too many Clint Eastwood movies?
Growing up, I never had a house key, the door was always unlocked, unless I came home too late and my mom was making a point. In the summer I played outside til it was time to go to bed and never had any trouble I didn't start myself.
in winter I'd play hockey every night til they turned out the lights (11:00). I found plenty of trouble their as I couldn't help but go after the older(and bigger) guys for a challenge. Still, I never managed to get kidnapped.
Nowadays, I park one of my vehicles in my driveway(own four, only three car garage) and often leave the keys in it; not because I'm tempting fate or making a point, but because this way I don't have to go looking for my keys all the time. I've never had any trouble.
I own guns, have all my adult life. I've never shot anyone. Maybe if you lived in Compton or somewhere similar it might be necessary to own a gun, I'm sure in some depressed areas of your country life is equally dangerous.
-
Originally posted by Curval
You guys in the US who don't own guns have the "choice" to own guns but don't.
Just how less of any of the above descriptions don't apply to you? You have the choice but choose not to. You are just as defenseless am I am in the face of an armed invader.
Arguing that you have the "right to defend yourself" as being a reason to own guns is strange to me given that you, and others, choose not to.
Owning a gun might be a choice for many Americans, but that choice can be arbitarily removed just because the local police chief doesn't want to issue a license.
I would wager that a fair percentage of people that could own guns, do not own guns because of the obsticals that accompany it.
For example, many US businesses prohibit their employees from bringing guns to work. Also, just about all major sporting events and concerts prohibit guns, as do Amusement parks, carnivals, schools, nite-clubs, and other places where people gather.
All of the restrictions of where you can carry a gun make it a big deterrant to even bother sometimes. You can't leave a hand-gun unattended in a vehicle either, because if it is stolen while you are away, you can be responsible for whatever happens with it, not to mention that you will probably loose you license.
When you do carry a gun, you have to consider that it must be concealed (as to not un-duely alarm other citizens) and kept within your direct control at all times. This means having to wear a jacket or loose fitting clothes so that buldges in your clothing are not so evident. If it's a hot day and you want to wear shorts and a T-shirt, you don't have many concealment options, unless you carry a very small gun.
Considering that you may have to leave a gun at home almost all the time you are away, one has to consider how usefull would the gun be for "home defense". People living in secure apartment buildings or condos may be satisified that they are not in danger at home, so owning a gun is not necessary for them. OTOH, someone may want to have a gun for home defense, but not be able to take it with them most places and cannot leave a gun at home while they are away, because they would worry about it being stolen or tampered with by a room-mate or some other person with access to the storage location.
-
Originally posted by Steve
Nowadays, I park one of my vehicles in my driveway(own four, only three car garage) and often leave the keys in it; not because I'm tempting fate or making a point, but because this way I don't have to go looking for my keys all the time. I've never had any trouble.
I own guns, have all my adult life. I've never shot anyone. Maybe if you lived in Compton or somewhere similar it might be necessary to own a gun, I'm sure in some depressed areas of your country life is equally dangerous.
I can vouch for Steve here, all true.
Plus, when we go shooting in the desert, he WILL NOT shoot at an animal.
-
curval... I think everyone here but you sees that your arguement makes no sense at all... Many people die here from hiking, rock climbing and parachuting... I don't particularly enjoy those activities...
By your logic... I should vote to remove my fellow mans right to do those things. I don't understand your thinking... I believe that it is simply a very british subject kinda thing.
Americans believe in the philosophy of self reliance... they may not own guns at this time but they sure don't want the option taken from them. How is less choice a logical way to vote?
many Americans talk about adding on to the house or building a Hot Rod but never do it... it is the self reliance thing... maybe an illussion but at least an option till.... some frieghtened little wuss decides to take away the option.
as for you being a girly man... not owning a firearm isn't what makes you a girly man.... wishing to take other peoples rights away is what makes you a girly man.
raves.. warned you that it was pretty dry and boring. without the sensationalism... the subject of guns is pretty straightforward and... kinda boring unless yu are into the whole thing.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Article doesn't say if he was a registered gun owner. Bet you he wasn't.
If he wasn't, he most likely stole the gun from someone who was.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as for you being a girly man... not owning a firearm isn't what makes you a girly man.... wishing to take other peoples rights away is what makes you a girly man.
Funny, I have repeatedly said I am not trying to take anyone's guns away, yet you keep saying I am. By your definition above I am not a girly man...thanks for clarifying that.
...and I guess all those other references about me hiding under my bed etc. were just "talk" too...so again...thanks.
-
Ten Really Good Reasons to Ban Guns By Bruce Gold
1. Guns are used in self-defense over 2 million times a year.
However, this makes the attempted crime a "non-event," which
necessarily complicates the Police investigation. Without civilian
ownership of guns, these Police investigations would not have been
compromised. Civilians should leave crime prevention to the Police
who are properly equipped to investigate following the crime's
completion.
2. Some .004 % (4/1000 of 1%) of guns are used in crime each
year. This is way too high. All guns should be banned
3. Guns are unnecessary. In 98% of civilian gun Defenses, no
shot is Fired. If you ARe not going to fire a shot, you clearly
don't need a gun. This proves that the guns are unnecessary.
Banning guns will prevent these unnecessary defenses.
4. Guns cause criminal migration. In tough gun law Washington
[D.C.], violent crime rates are very high. This high crime rate is
caused by the migration of criminals from gun havens like Virginia.
This migration is caused by the criminal's cowardly avoidance of
armed householders and concealed carry civilians. This criminal
migration is detrimental to helpless unarmed citizens in no gun
areas and must be stopped. Guns should be banned everywhere.
5. Most gun crimes are committed by inner city gangs and drug
dealers. These relatively small and geographically restricted
groups consistently commit the majority of gun crimes, which usually
peak as turf wars erupt over Drug War changes. The best way to
prevent this is by denying guns to all law abiding people
everywhere.
6. No woman needs to protect herself from rape, assault or
murder. The Police will protect them by investigating the crime
after the fact. Remember, Police paperwork is all the protection
anyone really needs.
7. Guns owners are disrespectful of authority. Good citizens
should completely rely on the authorities. A failure to do so is an
invariable sign of improper and overly independent attitudes.
Failure to completely and absolutely trust and depend on the
authorities is excessive democracy and sends a bad message to
children.
8. Guns owners engaging in self-defense are taking the law into
their own hands. This is wrong. Only the Police and Criminals have
the right to take the law into their own hands. It should be kept
out of the hands of citizens.
9. Children and young people should remain ignorant about guns.
Real guns and real gun knowledge dissipates the fantasies created by
violent video games and TV. Ignorance once lost, can never be
restored and needs to be protected. Not to mention the lost sales of
all the violent movies, TV shows, video games and etc!
10. Guns reduce people's reliance on the Police and Government.
This fosters a mistaken belief in "rights." No person has the right
to question authority. No person should be less then 100% dependent
on authority. This is fundamental to social order. Banning guns
will help to establish the Order the authorities want. This is
good.
-
Monday, October 02, 2000 6:23AM
> > > > It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by 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 guns in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!) While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety
has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your
governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this
information. The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note Americans, before it's too late!"
-
and my personal favorite:
Gotta love those gun control advocates....
Note: This is an exact replication of National
Public Radio (NPR) interview between a female
broadcaster, and US Army General Reinwald
who was about to sponsor a Boy Scout Troop
visiting his military installation.
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "So, General Reinwald,
what things are you going to teach these young
boys when they visit your base?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "We're going to teach
them climbing, canoeing, archery, and shooting."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Shooting! That's a bit
irresponsible, isn't it?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see why, they'll
be properly supervised on the rifle range."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "Don't you admit that
this is a terribly dangerous activity to be teaching
children?"
GENERAL REINWALD: "I don't see how. We will
be teaching them proper rifle discipline before they
even touch a firearm."
FEMALE INTERVIEWER: "But you're equipping
them to become violent killers."
GENERAL REINWALD: "Well, you're equipped to
be a prostitute, but you're not one, are you? "
The radio went silent and the interview
ended. And all I could think was, Go Army!
-
and my last (unless more are requested)
Some interesting facts for you to peruse....
HISTORY....
==============
Are you considering backing gun control laws? Do you think that
because you may not own a gun, the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment don't matter?
CONSIDER; In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
OPINION
Paul Harvey on Guns
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Paul Harvey's comment on Columbine High shootings:
How can we blame it all on guns?
For the life of me, I can't understand what could have gone wrong in Littleton, CO. If only the parents had kept their children away from the guns, we wouldn't have had such a tragedy.
Yeah, it must have been the guns. It couldn't have been because half our children are being raised in broken homes. It couldn't have been because our children get to spend an average of 30 seconds in meaningful conversation with their parents each day. After all, we give our children quality time.
It couldn't have been because we treat our children as pets and our pets as children.
It couldn't have been because we place our children in day care
centers where they learn their socialization skills among their peers under the law of the jungle while employees who have no vested interest in the children look on and make sure that no blood is spilled.
It couldn't have been because we allow our children to watch, on the average, seven hours of television a day filled with the glorification of sex and violence that isn't fit for adult consumption.
It couldn't have been because we allow our children to enter into
virtual worlds in which, to win the game, one must kill as many
opponents as possible in the most sadistic way possible.
It couldn't have been because we have sterilized and contracepted our families down to sizes so small that the children we do have are so spoiled with material things that they come to equate the receiving of the material with love.
It couldn't have been because our children, who historically have
been seen as a blessing from God, are now being viewed as either a mistake created when contraception fails or conveniences that parents try to raise in their spare time.
It couldn't have been because we give two-year prison sentences to teenagers who kill their newborns.
It couldn't have been because our school systems teach the children that they are nothing but glorified apes who have evolutionized out of some primordial soup of mud by teaching evolution as fact and by handing out condoms as if they were candy.
It couldn't have been because we teach our children that there are no laws of morality that transcend us, that everything is relative and that actions don't have consequences.
Nah, it must have been the guns.
- Paul Harvey
-
Originally posted by tce2506
CONSIDER; In 1929 the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have exterminated.
So that's it! Tony Blair's grand plan is to round us up and exterminate us!
(http://www.zen33071.zen.co.uk/dalek.jpg)
-
lol Beet1e...these guys have no idea what Darlicks are.
:aok
-
Wanna bet?
-
curval.. I do not believe that I have ever called you a girly man. This is at least the 4th time in recent memory that you have put words in my mouth and have been..... wrong.
the hiding under the bed comment was mine. It is a normal british subject way to deal with home invasion I have been told. I have also said that you are naive if you think a 9 iron is a good defense and that there are numerous criminal that I have been aquainted with who could take it away from you and cause you grave discomfort at best. I am old and feeble and think that I could probly take it away from you.
as for you being a girly man for wanting to take peoples guns away... are you saying that you would not vote to ban firearms in a place where you were a citizen? If that is the case then I have missunderstood your adamant anti gun stance.
lazs