Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: wrag on February 10, 2005, 11:23:09 AM
-
They said this wouldn't happen?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12208288-1702,00.html
-
it did :D
-
Mr Moroney said that, as part of the blitz, thousands of weapons were destroyed because police were not satisfied that the firearms were being kept securely, or that "possession of that firearm was necessarily further warranted".
Holy ****ing ****! I'm beyond words. :mad:
-
yep... it is allways best to watch history. Those who don't are doomed to repeat it. What happened to those poor bastards is exacly what the gun grabbers here have in mind for us.
lazs
-
OOOOOH I do hope so for the sake of all your victims of shootings!
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
OOOOOH I do hope so for the sake of all your victims of shootings!
The vast majority of those victims would still be dead even if the perpetrator didnt have access to a firearm. The perps would just find other weapons to use.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
The vast majority of those victims would still be dead even if the perpetrator didnt have access to a firearm. The perps would just find other weapons to use.
when was the last time a knife missed its target and killed a bystander?
-
Errrmmm...
In total, 185,000 licensed firearm holders were identified, holding about 600,000 registered firearms between them, he said.
Thats an average of 3 firearms per license holder... why the need?
"Some 43,000 weapons were seized and subsequently destroyed by NSW police during (20)03-04," he said.
Thats less than 7% of the firearms.
So in summary, over a 2 year period the Australian police do an audit, find some issues with 7% of those firearms and have them destroyed. That 7% includes improperly secured (ie within reach of kids), and possibly unsafe firearms.
Then the flaming gun nuts sit on the sidelines screaming bloody murder over that little 7%?
You guys need to take a good look in the mirror when you claim the anti-gun nuts are... well.... nuts :)
-
Originally posted by vorticon
when was the last time a knife missed its target and killed a bystander?
Probably when some perp thought it would be really cool to throw his knife at his intended victim (like they do in the movies), but never practiced throwing a knife ;)
-
Thats an average of 3 firearms per license holder... why the need?
I own 7 firearms, each has a different purpose.
-
I own far more than 7 firearms. I do not have to claim a need to be able to own them.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
when was the last time a knife missed its target and killed a bystander?
Problem with that thought is a knife probably wouldnt have missed its target and you would still have one person dead.
It just wouldnt be the bystander.
But really you think criminals are worried that they are breaking the law if they have a gun?
Ummm they're CRIMINALS.
USING a gun or simply being in possession of a gun while committing a crime carries a harsher penalty even if its not used and they do it anyway. You really delude yourself into thinking that they will care if guns are illegal? That they are going to say
"Guns are against the law so I wont use it to try to rob this convieniance store"
All it does it take away the guns from people who the vast majority of them never have or will ever use it to commit a crime with. And the real criminals will still have guns.
It will also put all the power in the hands of the criminals, and the government (who are sometimes one in the same)
And ask us to put all our faith in the government and police to be able to protect me.
Sorry But both have shown an inability to do so.
The Police, God bless em all, do their best Im sure. But they are more often then not a reactionary force then a preventing one and they only actually prevent a miniscule amount of the crimes that are actually commited each and every day.
As my father used to say
"When the government cannot protect the people. the people must be allowed to protect themselves"
Well, they cant. and we should.
-
I love the United States of America, and my Heckler & Koch USP 45.
Karaya
-
vort... that is true.. knives don't miss but bombs and cars and pianos pushed of buildings and airliners crashed do...
I believe that what we are saying is that if all guns just dissapeared we would either have the same homicide rate or it would go up... If the helpless were unarmed it would cause more deaths...If the bad guys knew that all they had to be was stronger than the victim homicides would go up.
Probly less bad guys would get killed tho.
lazs
-
Sigh there realy is no hope for the land of the gun!
Good luck to you all. I hope the kevlar vests aren't too uncomfortable and enjoy playing with your lethal toys. you all have my deepest sympathy.
Oh and god forbid don't get shot now will you. Bullets do a lot of damage you know!
:(
-
guns are not toys zulu, but you would not know that, you live in nannyland.
side note: florida law:
if you use a gun in a crime=10 years
if you shoot the gun during a crime=20 years
if you hit someone when you shoot the gun during a crime=25 to life , depending on how good a shot you are.
-
No government voluntarily disarms. In america the people are the government.
Liberty is higher on americans' hiearchy of needs than physical safety. If you don't get it, at least try to get over it.
-
Sadly we are nannied as you put it.
Infact I think we are overly regulated but thats true in nearly all developed countries I think not least in yours.
We have the Litiginous ( that how you spell it? ) I'll sue you culture imported from your good selves to thank for that though!
The Lawyers get fatter and fatter whilst our regulations and rules grow and grow.
But I still would not have your gun laws for love nor money. I quite like not having to worry about getting blown away for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place.
Oh and as for the knives thing I can run from a knife I can't run faster than a bullet so that argument, is I am afraid, a bit spurious.
-
Litigious.
Vulcan, what makes me mad is not the fact that the guns were said to be "Improperly stored," but the thought of who decides what "Properly stored," is. Those policemen took away those guns, not because they were "Improperly stored," but because they could.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
...I quite like not having to worry about getting blown away for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place...
I have been in the wrong places and said the wrong things and never once have I seen a gun pulled.
I think you watch too much TV.
-
Furious,
Don't tell him he has a misconception. He may come over here instead. It's better to have him think it's not safe here so he'll stay where he is.
-
If private gun ownership was truly the problem that the anti-gun freaks would like folks to believe that it is then guns would be long gone already.
Making something illegal does nothing to keep criminals from doing it....they are criminals (duh).
If the judicial system would enforce the laws and associated penalties crime would drop dramatically......recidivism accounts for over 60 percent of crimes committed.
Rehabilitation........"They ain't no sucha thing."
Most police support the ENTIRE constitution.....that would include both the first and second ammendments (personal experience). "Police" in this sense does not include political lackeys....(some division heads....aka chiefs etc.).
Zaphod
-
Maverick I've been over there already 3 times. Lived there for 6 months. Quite safe I know. Still think your govt is crazy and Guns are for armies not private citizens.
-
Zulu, let me bounce a Hypothetical question off of you.
Say one day your government popped out saying that it was becoming an extreme right wing white christian organization that will kill all other ethnicities and religions. While that idea is wild, what would you do about it?
-
The day that someone representing MY government enters MY home to ask if MY guns are "necessarily waranted" is the day that they suddenly become absolutely necessary and waranted.
-
Lazer I would like to believe I would do everything I could to stand up for what I belive in and yes if there was a civil war I would fight for what I believed in.
However reality is that I love my family wife to be etc and if that choice endangered them I would have a very hard decision to make. probably I would do what it took to keep them safe but I would not take pleasure in it or believe in it. I'm sure many Germans of our forefathers generation would understand this only too well.
But that has nothing to do with guns or gun law because that is an extreme situation warranting extreme responses. Currently those conditions do not exist so what is the justifiocation for an armed society please I just don't seee one.
-
Zulu,
We tend to believe that what happened in Germany wouldn't (shouldn't) happen in the US because we value freedom more than we value our life.
Our founding fathers valued a nation of free individuals more than they valued even the lives of their families.
That's a hard concept to grasp, even for many Americans.
Also, society is not armed. Free citizens have a right to be armed. The justification for this is academic until faced with a government that seeks to disarm it's citizens. Under such a circumstance, the justification becomes obvious.
-
(Oops. Dupe post deleted.)
-
How would you fight though?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Lazer I would like to believe I would do everything I could to stand up for what I belive in and yes if there was a civil war I would fight for what I believed in.
However reality is that I love my family wife to be etc and if that choice endangered them I would have a very hard decision to make. probably I would do what it took to keep them safe but I would not take pleasure in it or believe in it. I'm sure many Germans of our forefathers generation would understand this only too well.
But that has nothing to do with guns or gun law because that is an extreme situation warranting extreme responses. Currently those conditions do not exist so what is the justifiocation for an armed society please I just don't seee one.
Zulu a number of years ago I worked with a young man who felt much the way you do. He got married and quickly a baby girl. The day after he first held her, he asked me how to join the NRA and eventualy gained a conceled carry permit. I asked him what changed. He said untill he held his infant daughter for the first time, he never understood how much there was to care about and to loose to those who absolutly don't care about his wife's or his new daughter's life.
Life is a lottery. No, most of us will never see a fist fight in public let alone a violent crime in progress. But one figure stands out in all countries. Depending on the country you live in, one to twelve percent of the population are active criminals who do not care about your life. Human evil and and weak willed people are the norm and will not go away in our life time.
I will not be a victom, be preyed upon or assaulted by another human being, nor will I allow such to happen to my loved ones and freinds. I am old enough to have had too much experience with those life styles. You cannot predict the future, but when these things happen to a person, you cannot stuff their life back into them. It happens so fast you think it is not real. Then they are gone forever. Good intentions and clean living don't matter to evil people.
-
You cannot predict the future, but when these things happen to a person, you cannot stuff their life back into them. It happens so fast you think it is not real. Then they are gone forever. Good intentions and clean living don't matter to evil people.
Yep this is true but I still don't feel the need to carry a gun and I'm glad to be living in a country that doesn't allow it! For what its worth I feel a bit safer knowing the "evil doer" is statisticaly unlikely to be carrying one also.
-
Zulu,
I don't carry a gun either. I do have such at night since I'm not as young as I once was. Only one other human being is supposed to be in my home. My girlfreind of 8 years. When I am in my home, if there is or are persons here who arn't her, I choose to be judged by 12 peers rather than make the mistake of hesitance. In the post mortum of any violent encounter hesitence in the face of the split second decision is the leading factor in the death of either combatant.
I do not beleive you or many of our BB members have ever been there nor do I wish it upon them. But it happens faster than you can formulate a whitty responce. And then your freind or loved one is gone. I cannot and will not advocate to others against human nature. We don't want to die, and we generaly wish it would pass us by never showing up in our lives. But I want you to think, are you betting the lottery wheel will always fall on the odds you want, or are you demanding that another human being lay his or her life down for yours if it does? Is your life more important than the policeman's life who you are ultimatly expecting to protect you?
That kinda violates our first pact with the All Mighty. To take care of and protect the life you are given as a reflection of mastering and honoring living life to the absolute best of your personal ability. And so to the extention of that protecting the lives of those whom you love and cherish. Evil will and does seek to take that from yourself and your loved ones.
So, is your life more important to you than a policemans, a soldier, your wife's when you have the human ability to act in your own service and your wifes?
Relying on the government for your personal saftey is asking another person to lay down their life for you because you won't do it for yourself. This is not about carrying a gun. This is about freedom as americans view it. Do you value freedom or the imagery of security where you accept anothers death as the price of your personal security and the restrictions that ultimately grow with it?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Sadly we are nannied as you put it.
But I still would not have your gun laws for love nor money. I quite like not having to worry about getting blown away for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place.
.
but your missing the point.
Gun laws dont stop gun use in crimes.
they just prevent people from "legally" owning them.
And Criminals dont care abotu the legality of gun laws to begin with or they wouldnt use them in crimes anyway.
Gun laws dont stop criminals form blowing people away.
they only stop people the very large majority of which would never use them in a criminal act or to shoot anyone to begin with
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Yep this is true but I still don't feel the need to carry a gun and I'm glad to be living in a country that doesn't allow it! For what its worth I feel a bit safer knowing the "evil doer" is statisticaly unlikely to be carrying one also.
Lets see the numbers
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
but your missing the point.
Gun laws dont stop gun use in crimes.
they just prevent people from "legally" owning them.
And Criminals dont care abotu the legality of gun laws to begin with or they wouldnt use them in crimes anyway.
Gun laws dont stop criminals form blowing people away.
they only stop people the very large majority of which would never use them in a criminal act or to shoot anyone to begin with
Zulu re-read the above.
Excellent point.
If you make guns illegal, that will only harm the law abiding citizen. The criminals are probably 100% in FAVOR of gun controll for the avg. citizen. It means they can commit their crimes w/o the fear of the guy they are robbing being able to fight back.
-
Ask someone else for the numbers but face facts we don't have guns in vast quantities in society like you guys do.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Ask someone else for the numbers but face facts we don't have guns in vast quantities in society like you guys do.
That's just a result of the general uprising in the late 1700's that "ya'll" had to deal with.
A few citizens with guns can be an aggravating thing. ie: Iraq
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Ask someone else for the numbers but face facts we don't have guns in vast quantities in society like you guys do.
Your making an outright specific claim of
Originally posted by Zulu7
Yep this is true but I still don't feel the need to carry a gun and I'm glad to be living in a country that doesn't allow it! For what its worth I feel a bit safer knowing the "evil doer" is statisticaly unlikely to be carrying one also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im asking you to back that up with data.
If you cant back your claims up you shouldnt be making them.
Or are we supposed to buy into it "because you say so"?
-
The number of unarmed civilians killed by their own governments, or with their tacit approval, during the 20th century is absolutely staggering.
The problems posed for the German military by the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which involved a mere handful of lightly armed Jews, should be a lesson for those who doubt the necessity of an armed civilian population.
-
Exactly.
But zulu, you still haven't answered my question.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Litigious.
Vulcan, what makes me mad is not the fact that the guns were said to be "Improperly stored," but the thought of who decides what "Properly stored," is. Those policemen took away those guns, not because they were "Improperly stored," but because they could.
Reread that to yourself, over and over. Because no matter how many times I read it still does make sense. Who else decides? If not law-enforcements then who? I can think of no-one less qualified than the Police.
And what do you mean "not because they were improperly stored". What kind of idiotic statement is that? Are you implying that the Australian Police randomly stormed 7% of gun owners... no wait its 2.33 because each has an average on 3 weapons... randomly stormed 2.33% of Australian gun owners homes and confiscated their weapons just for the hell of it?
Your honour, I present a gun-nut :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Samiam
The day that someone representing MY government enters MY home to ask if MY guns are "necessarily waranted" is the day that they suddenly become absolutely necessary and waranted.
And where does it stop?
How are those armour-piercing cop killer bullets going?
Or maybe you need grenades?
Hell maybe your pissed off next door neighbour needs to up the stakes with an RPG.
I'm quite happy for my government to stop fruitcakes like you arming themselves to the teeth for no apparent reason. There has never been a day in my life where I've had to concern myself with the thought of being shot, I like it that way, and I'll be happy for my kids to live that way.
You know, my wife was chatting with some relatives who moved to the USA a few years ago, they're bugging out, heading home, had enough of the place because its to dangerous and violent. Heres the punchline... they came from Cambodia!
-
Oh and as for the knives thing I can run from a knife I can't run faster than a bullet so that argument, is I am afraid, a bit spurious.
You may or may not be able to out run the guy with the knife though, and thats FAR more important than being able to outrun the knife ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And where does it stop?
How are those armour-piercing cop killer bullets going?
Or maybe you need grenades?
Hell maybe your pissed off next door neighbour needs to up the stakes with an RPG.
I'm quite happy for my government to stop fruitcakes like you arming themselves to the teeth for no apparent reason. There has never been a day in my life where I've had to concern myself with the thought of being shot, I like it that way, and I'll be happy for my kids to live that way.
You know, my wife was chatting with some relatives who moved to the USA a few years ago, they're bugging out, heading home, had enough of the place because its to dangerous and violent. Heres the punchline... they came from Cambodia!
First off, the bullets that can pierce kevlar vests have been illegal for your average Joe to purchase almost from the beginning. I also dont know of any police officers that have been killed with them.
You seem to think that all of us Americans walk around every day witness to all sorts of random violence including gunfights. In my 42 years of existence here in America I have yet to witness a violent crime. Although I have been victimized by burglars twice while away from my home.
The criminals here have guns, lots of them. It's to late to stop them from getting them. If we disarm our law abiding citizens we will be at the mercy of criminals, I for one do not want that.
-
So....would anyone have a problem going deer hunting with a single shot 20mm?
-
zulu... your shortsidedness is embarassing. You would "run away" if someone attacked you with a knife? you can't see past your own nose... Let's say that you crash that environmental disaster of a bike you ride today and become paralyzed (god forbid) from the waist down... Do you believe that anyone who is stronger and more mobile than you should just be able to take from you anything they want? What would you do about it? you can't "run away" and calling the police would be way to little way too late.
Most gun owners in America are the most vulnerable. The largest segment of the population now arming themselves are women. I don't harm women so it isn't me that they are arming themselves against. Older and infirm (you need to look a little ahead of today) feel the need for guns.
Watching UK countries take away guns for every single reason under the sun until they are all gone is teaching us a lesson about "sensible" gun legeslation... There is no such thing... there are gun owners and there are the people who would take those guns away. It is that simple.
And... I agree.. In America we are the government and we, as people, feel that no justification is good enough to take away our freedom to defend ourselves and our freedom... No price is too high to pay for it either.
I also don't believe that removing guns would make any difference whatsoever in our homiciede rate just as it made no difference in yours or australlias.
You guys gave up your freedoms for nothing.
lazs
-
wolfa... a 20mm might not be very good for shooting deer although I bet I could develop a load for it that would work fairly well... still... it would be more humane to have the chance for a quick second shot on a wounded deer or any other animal.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
So....would anyone have a problem going deer hunting with a single shot 20mm?
Chuck Yeager:
"Next the squadron moved to Casper, Wyoming for more training. It was also great hunting; one time Chuck went up in his P-39 and carefully herded a dozen antelope toward a pre-arranged spot, where his armed ground confederates had a field day. They ate antelope roasts for a month."
Although not 20mm, it does illustrate the doctrine, "Meat through superior firepower"
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And where does it stop?
Or maybe you need grenades?
Hell maybe your pissed off next door neighbour needs to up the stakes with an RPG.
You know, my wife was chatting with some relatives who moved to the USA a few years ago, they're bugging out, heading home, had enough of the place because its to dangerous and violent. Heres the punchline... they came from Cambodia!
Naa we dont need Greanades or RPGs
Comes the time we do we can make our own.
IEDs are rediculously easy to make.
Adding a rocket to them isnt a whole lot more difficult.
Might I ask where in the USA they lived? LA perhaps?
-
Hmmm just had a thought.
Instead of making it illegal for people to have guns.
Why not just make it illegal for criminals to have guns.
Or to use guns while commiting a crime.
Would work just as well
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
I love the United States of America, and my Heckler & Koch USP 45.
Karaya
I see someone has been Playing Metal Gear Solid huh huh huh? :rofl
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Sadly we are nannied as you put it.
Infact I think we are overly regulated but thats true in nearly all developed countries I think not least in yours.
We have the Litiginous ( that how you spell it? ) I'll sue you culture imported from your good selves to thank for that though!
The Lawyers get fatter and fatter whilst our regulations and rules grow and grow.
But I still would not have your gun laws for love nor money. I quite like not having to worry about getting blown away for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place.
Oh and as for the knives thing I can run from a knife I can't run faster than a bullet so that argument, is I am afraid, a bit spurious.
Here in the State of Florida, we have a concealed weapons permit. Of over 100,000 permits that where issued none (0) where ever used in commission of a crime. Gun crimes are committed by those that are in violation of a law even possesing a weapon. Blaming the gun for crime is like blaming the pen for mis-spelled words.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
zulu... your shortsidedness is embarassing. You would "run away" if someone attacked you with a knife? you can't see past your own nose... Let's say that you crash that environmental disaster of a bike you ride today and become paralyzed (god forbid) from the waist down... Do you believe that anyone who is stronger and more mobile than you should just be able to take from you anything they want? What would you do about it? you can't "run away" and calling the police would be way to little way too late.
Most gun owners in America are the most vulnerable. The largest segment of the population now arming themselves are women. I don't harm women so it isn't me that they are arming themselves against. Older and infirm (you need to look a little ahead of today) feel the need for guns.
Watching UK countries take away guns for every single reason under the sun until they are all gone is teaching us a lesson about "sensible" gun legeslation... There is no such thing... there are gun owners and there are the people who would take those guns away. It is that simple.
And... I agree.. In America we are the government and we, as people, feel that no justification is good enough to take away our freedom to defend ourselves and our freedom... No price is too high to pay for it either.
I also don't believe that removing guns would make any difference whatsoever in our homiciede rate just as it made no difference in yours or australlias.
You guys gave up your freedoms for nothing.
lazs
Ahhh yeah right lazs, 2.3% of gun owners got their guns destroyed for either not storing them properly or having no real reason for owning the type of firearm they had.
2.3%
HULLO LAZS
2.3% over two years... 1.15% per year...
You are screaming government represession over 2.3% - excuse me if you don't look like a fruitcake.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ahhh yeah right lazs, 2.3% of gun owners got their guns destroyed for either not storing them properly or having no real reason for owning the type of firearm they had.
2.3%
HULLO LAZS
2.3% over two years... 1.15% per year...
You are screaming government represession over 2.3% - excuse me if you don't look like a fruitcake.
That's the point? They didn't need em???? Or didn't store em properly? OK your toliet is improperly maintained GIVE it up! You will now use an outhouse. You don't cut your hair properly SHAVE your head. You don't need a vehicle. we are taking yours. Percentages??? These people don't matter cause it doesn't affect me? YA RIGHT!
Remember the they came for the ****** but I said nothing because I wasn't a ****** etc. etc. ...... then they came for me and I spoke up but there was no one left........
That's the point? They didn't need em???? Did you decide this? WHO DECIDES??????
-
Your making an outright specific claim of
Originally posted by Zulu7
Yep this is true but I still don't feel the need to carry a gun and I'm glad to be living in a country that doesn't allow it! For what its worth I feel a bit safer knowing the "evil doer" is statisticaly unlikely to be carrying one also.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Im asking you to back that up with data.
If you cant back your claims up you shouldnt be making them.
Or are we supposed to buy into it "because you say so"?
How about:
79 people killed with a firearm in England and Wales in 2003/04 (out of population of just over 50 million)
Rate = 0.15 per 100,000 people
In the US, approx 10,000 people murdered with a firearm
Rate = 3.41 per 100,000 people
How about guns used in crime?
There were 5,630 crimes in which a firearm was used in England and Wales in 2003/04, down about 15%. (there was an increase of 48% in the number of replica guns used in crime, but they are not exactly dangerous)
The rate of firearms crimes (all crimes, including criminal damage, threatening behaviour etc) was 10.8 per 100,000 people.
In the US there were approx 173,000 robberies in which firearms were used, 164,000 aggravated assaults in which firearms were used, 10,000 murders in which firearms were used.
The rate for just those 3 offences (ignoring others like threatening behaviour, criminal damage etc) was approx 118 per 100,000 people.
Hmmm just had a thought.
Instead of making it illegal for people to have guns.
Why not just make it illegal for criminals to have guns.
Or to use guns while commiting a crime.
It already is. Perhaps it's just not effective because criminals don't obey the law?
-
Originally posted by wrag
That's the point? They didn't need em???? Or didn't store em properly? OK your toliet is improperly maintained GIVE it up! You will now use an outhouse. You don't cut your hair properly SHAVE your head. You don't need a vehicle. we are taking yours. Percentages??? These people don't matter cause it doesn't affect me? YA RIGHT!
Remember the they came for the ****** but I said nothing because I wasn't a ****** etc. etc. ...... then they came for me and I spoke up but there was no one left........
That's the point? They didn't need em???? Did you decide this? WHO DECIDES??????
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm
Going by your logic wrag drunk drivers are ok too?
But hey you'd prefer your "freedom", better to let hundreds of children die to improperly secured firearms right? Damn it you're so right Wrag... I'm gonna go get boozed up and who gives a f*** about the law, what right do they have to decide whether I'm capable of driving or not?
In 1999, 3,385 kids ages 0-19 years were killed with a gun. This includes homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries.
This is equivalent to about 9 deaths per day, a figure commonly used by journalists.
The 3,385 firearms-related deaths for age group 0-19 years breaks down to:
214 unintentional
1,078 suicides
1,990 homicides
83 for which the intent could not be determined
20 due to legal intervention
Of the total firearms-related deaths:
73 were of children under five years old
416 were children 5-14 years old
2,896 were 15-19 years old
You guys should really listen to yourselves sometime.
Just to make it really clear wrag, in just over one week more children die to firearms in the USA than all deaths to firearms in the UK for one year. More children die to firearms in the USA in one week than do in NZ in one DECADE.
-
And thats what I have against gun ownership!
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm
Going by your logic wrag drunk drivers are ok too?
But hey you'd prefer your "freedom", better to let hundreds of children die to improperly secured firearms right? Damn it you're so right Wrag... I'm gonna go get boozed up and who gives a f*** about the law, what right do they have to decide whether I'm capable of driving or not?
You guys should really listen to yourselves sometime.
Just to make it really clear wrag, in just over one week more children die to firearms in the USA than all deaths to firearms in the UK for one year. More children die to firearms in the USA in one week than do in NZ in one DECADE.
"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow." - Alan Eppers
"How a politician stands on the Second Amendment tells you how he or she views you as an individual... as a trustworthy and productive citizen, or as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded, controlled, supervised, and taken care of."
--REP. SUZANNA GRATIA HUPP (TX)
Not sure about you but I tend to NOT count 19 year olds as kids.
Further the U.S military used to allow 17 year olds to enlist with parental consent.
Hmmm and just how many of those children deaths are gang bangers fighting over turf????
You've been sheltered? I've seen some of those kids you're perhaps refering to, and watched how they act. I understand why some are tried as adults.
I've seen these figures and some like em used before. What they don't seem to tell you is that the majority is much closer to that 19 years old figure. They also like to use the "they knew each other" thing. Yep they did. Rival gangs usualy know who's in the other gangs.
"Using inner city kids as your proof that guns and kids don’t mix, is like using an alcoholic to prove all people will abuse alcohol." ~~ Lori Broadhead
Drunk drivers are OK??? Where you gettin that? Please explain your logic there as I simply do not understand it.
You really gonna get drunk and go try and kill some kids? Scuse me but I would consider that murder!
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it" ~~ George Bernard Shaw
Improperly stored? Hmm I always knew exactly where the firearms where in my parents house when I was young. I also knew full well what they were, what they were capable of doing, and why I shouldn't touch em without a parent/adult around. They weren't locked up. Knew where the ammo was too.
"Smart guns and safety locks aren't meant to protect children. They're meant to kill gun owners." ~~ Victor Milan
"The doctrine of blind obedience and unqualified submission to any human power, whether civil or ecclesiastical, is the doctrine of despotism...." --Angelica Grimke
Hey ya wanna get into a modern parenting vs old style argument?
FREEDOM is NOT FREE! Never has been and never will be!
What? You gonna vote for Hiliary Clinton in 2008? I'm NOT!
"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all."~~Nikita Khrushchev
"All our lives we fought against exalting the individual, against the elevation of the single person."~~Vladimir Lenin
"There is the great, silent, continuous struggle: the struggle between the State and the Individual."~~ Benito Mussolini
"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual"~~Adolph Hitler
"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society."~~Hillary Clinton, 1993
Too many seem to dance in the streets with great joy as someone loses a right, or a freedom, or a liberty .............
"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am." ~~ Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
Way too many seem to fit into this as well......
"According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit and almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition." ~~ Albert Jay Nock; The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man
I think I'll stop for now with this......"There are 83 million lawful and responsible gun owners in this country, and we're sick and tired of being treated like criminals." ~~ Sam Cohen
-
Oh this is great..... comparing gun homicide rates (without comparing homicide rates in general) between the U.S. and some pissant little socialist nanny island... again... you guys act like removing all the guns will reduce the homicide rate enough to justify it... or the crime rate.. in the U.S. more guns in the population reduce crime... in england... less guns do little or raise the crime rate.
73 children were killed out of a population of 290 some million by guns accidentally... less than were drown in buckets... this is laughable. 15-19 year old gang bangers are now "children"? this is beyond dishonest.
Justify your loss of freedom anyway you like just don't try to export it..
vulcan.. Wrong type or stored improperly? What is the "wrong type" of gun? is it one that is used in an abnormal amount of crimes? what about stored unsafely? do you have a huge amount of accidental deaths from improperly stored firearms?
I think that watching your governments that are not governments of the people... I think the lessons are good for us to see. I bet a lot of Americans who take their rights for granted are getting just a little queazy reading what you socilaists are writing and trying to export.
lazs
-
How many gun threads are there on this board again?:rolleyes:
Lazs you and others like you, lurv your guns. Some of us don't. It seems we have reached that point way way long time ago. So how about a different subject as nothing we say will change the situation anyhow. kids will still shoot kids in the US, and you guys will defend your right to be armed to teeth till they prize the thing from your lifeless fingers as you gun nuts might say. And we will probably continue to think your gov nuts for allowing it all!
Next subject please.
-
Originally posted by wrag Drunk drivers are OK??? Where you gettin that? Please explain your logic there as I simply do not understand it.
You really gonna get drunk and go try and kill some kids? Scuse me but I would consider that murder!
[/B]
Who are you too decide how drunk I can be when I drive? Are you trying to take away my rights? I never said I'd go kill some kids, I'm just tired of catching taxi's when I'm boozed up, I know how to handle a car even when I'm plastered.
-
vulcan... As far as I am concerned...you can drink as much as you like before you drive so long as your abilities to drive safely are not dimished.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Who are you too decide how drunk I can be when I drive? Are you trying to take away my rights? I never said I'd go kill some kids, I'm just tired of catching taxi's when I'm boozed up, I know how to handle a car even when I'm plastered.
Are you serious or is this some poorly thought out troll?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Who are you too decide how drunk I can be when I drive? Are you trying to take away my rights? I never said I'd go kill some kids, I'm just tired of catching taxi's when I'm boozed up, I know how to handle a car even when I'm plastered.
No Problem .... BUT you have an accident or kill someone what you gonna do? Who you gonna blame? You gonna stand up in court and say It was your fault, that you are the only one to blame for being SELF-IMPAIRED, or hire a lawyer?
Me? I know better regarding myself. I avoid drinking AND driving. But I have firearms and I'm pretty responsible about them as well.
I worked in SAR for a time. Saw some pretty nasty stuff. Included was some drunk driver related accidents. Ugh.
As to who am I to tell you that you can't drive drunk? No one. You wanna drive drunk be my guest. BUT at least carry some really good insurance.
You really believe you can still function at your best while you have created a SELF-IMPAIRED situation GO FOR IT.
But OWN UP to it IF and WHEN OK??????
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
How many gun threads are there on this board again?:rolleyes:
Lazs you and others like you, lurv your guns. Some of us don't. It seems we have reached that point way way long time ago. So how about a different subject as nothing we say will change the situation anyhow. kids will still shoot kids in the US, and you guys will defend your right to be armed to teeth till they prize the thing from your lifeless fingers as you gun nuts might say. And we will probably continue to think your gov nuts for allowing it all!
Next subject please.
THERE YA ARE! allowing it all? HOT NEWS flash WE are the government. WE THE PEOPLE.....
gun nutz? More like freedom nutz from our point of view.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~~ George Washington
"Government is not reason. Government is not eloquence. It is force. And, like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." ---George Washington
"An armed society is a polite society." ~~ Robert A. Heinlein
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." ~~ James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244
"Americans who value freedom had better be more concerned about the gun control crowd than the criminals. The criminals want your money. The Neo-Totalitarians want your freedom." ~~ Charlie Reese
..."If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." -- Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill on the eve of Britain's entry into World War II
"Corrupt politicians inspire assassins. Of course they don't want people to have guns. Politicians never trust the people to whom they give reason to shoot them." ~~ Angel Shamaya
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Are you serious or is this some poorly thought out troll?
Read the above conversation. I was making a point. The gun-lunies seem to want their own laws when it applies to guns, but when it applies to other stuff (like drunk driving) they're quite happy for the government/police to decide whats wrong/right.
Basically it has highlighted the one eyed hypocracy of people like wrag, lazs was smart enough to avoid the hook though ;)
-
Vulcan,
Your "arguement" doesn't apply. There are laws on the books for misuse of firearms. There are laws on the books for misuse of alcohol. There is also a constitutional ammendment allowing the use of both alcohol and firearms. There is no ammendment allowing misuse of either. If you injure another using either one of those two items you are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
Perhaps I missed someting earlier but I don't see any of the folks that have been labled as "gun nuts" saying unlawful use of firearms was what they wanted. I do see some advocating denying others the ability to use firearms for lawful purposes. Quite different situation.
-
You guys should really stop using children in statistics for fire arms fatalities to justify anything. World wide they are a drop in the bucket to the most dangerous entity to all children birth to seven years old. Their mother. In the U.S. alone the yearly average of deaths by a childs mother is 40,000+-.
Primarily the agent of fatality is a new mother just makeing a mistake holding or interacting with the child. Second up is mothers who loose their temper for a moment with the child. It goes down hill form there. When you new fathers leave your new child, usually your first with your wife, you are takeing a good size gamble that the child will survive the next 5-6 years.
Next up as the most lethal agent to children worldwide in the same age range are simple accidents non parent related. Then diasease, then starvation. Guns are simply not a real factor in overall infant mortality. Funny the safest place that has been found for children is in the care of their biological father. Fathers do not make the mistakes nor loose it the way mothers will. It's kind of taboo to cover that in the media.
A child is safer with a gun toting father than just about anywhere else. You fathers cannot help yourselves. Your child is your future and imortality.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Read the above conversation. I was making a point. The gun-lunies seem to want their own laws when it applies to guns, but when it applies to other stuff (like drunk driving) they're quite happy for the government/police to decide whats wrong/right.
Basically it has highlighted the one eyed hypocracy of people like wrag, lazs was smart enough to avoid the hook though ;)
Making a point? SORRY but IMHO that dog don't hunt! Further I consider the comparison to be way off base! One eyed hypocracy? Hmmmm... think we are dealing with a HUGH societal difference here. And your post SEEMS to indicate you're perhaps not considering these issue from the same location within civilization as I am. The following is why I say this.
In courts the JURY decides guilt. The JURY is made up of WE THE PEOPLE.
Granted the politcians have come up with some pretty mean laws regarding drunk driving but they did so at the behest of WE THE PEOPLE. They actually listened for a change. True some went overboard. Some always do :(
Maverick made the point very well IMHO.
Even so, American society was orginally based on each individual having freedom and liberty with the understanding they must accept the responsiblity for their own actions, words, or deeds. Sadly this is becoming less the case in our society.
"Liberty means responsibility. That is why most men dread it" ~~ George Bernard Shaw
What the above quote say to me is we, all of us, have to think ourselves through our lives. Yes we feel things and have emotions but we better think about what we do or say BEFORE we do or say it. We must each of us consider the affect of our actions, words, and deeds on all others around us. Why? Because we could very easily find ourselves facing legal action, or physical combat, or even death if we don't. We can go only so far with our freedoms, go too far, become too self important, then we better be ready for the REACTIONS of others. Then, after we have considered these things, proceed, if we truely believe it is the best or even only course to take. This holds true if one is intent upon the robbery of another or defending their home against invasion against intruders. Sadly, all too often, those bent on robbery or other such violations of the rights and freedoms of others seem to not understand this or just don't care. IMHO when they KNOW their intended victom is armed and will use that weapon they seek out someone that isn't or they do not go through with their intended crime.
So you wanna drink and drive? Be my guest! From my viewpoint YOU HAVE THAT FREEDOM. But YOU really should be prepared for what can and often does result! Cause if I''m on that jury you're in BIG trouble! I would hold you to your words typed above SIR. I consider those words typed by you (Vulcan) to be selfish, selfcentered, and lacking in consideration for others. Even if it was only typed to make a point.
I'm inclined to believe my earlier posts in this thread have not been read, or not read very closely. I've noticed this same thing with many of my post in other threads most often where guns are concerned.
Yes I use quotes. Why? Because very often what I want to point out or say has often been said by someone else in a far better manner then I can or could say it.
-
Originally posted by bustr
You guys should really stop using children in statistics for fire arms fatalities to justify anything. World wide they are a drop in the bucket to the most dangerous entity to all children birth to seven years old. Their mother. In the U.S. alone the yearly average of deaths by a childs mother is 40,000+-.
Primarily the agent of fatality is a new mother just makeing a mistake holding or interacting with the child. Second up is mothers who loose their temper for a moment with the child. It goes down hill form there. When you new fathers leave your new child, usually your first with your wife, you are takeing a good size gamble that the child will survive the next 5-6 years.
Next up as the most lethal agent to children worldwide in the same age range are simple accidents non parent related. Then diasease, then starvation. Guns are simply not a real factor in overall infant mortality. Funny the safest place that has been found for children is in the care of their biological father. Fathers do not make the mistakes nor loose it the way mothers will. It's kind of taboo to cover that in the media.
A child is safer with a gun toting father than just about anywhere else. You fathers cannot help yourselves. Your child is your future and imortality.
WOW bro........ made me remember. My 1st wife got sent away and I kept the kids. I had her seeing a Navy psych, a Navy chaplien, I got out of the U.S.M.C. on a hardship discharge trying to stop her abuse of my sons and save my family. I then tried a civilian Psych, pastor of our chruch, a social worker, nothing worked. I got sick at work one day came home early, and when I saw her choking my oldest then turning and punching my then youngest....... She departed from my house that day. Took her to the bus station and made sure she got on that bus. Filed for divorce right away. When the judge saw all this stuff in the records I got full custody and she was forbbiden to see em.
Still hurts though :(
Something else that hurts .... Sadly my friends all thought I was the one abusing em. They thought I was the one putting all the bruses on em. They didn't tell me this until after she was gone and my sons were bruse free. Why? I've pretty much always had a rep of being someone better left in peace. Proved it in highschool and junior high. Also I was not long back from the 1968 Tet offensive. Viet Combat Vets already had a bad rep. Undeserved IMHO.
-
To this day you have to go look yourself at the FBI statistics on child mortality in the United States and it's causes. No one wants to touch it. When a woman gets pregnant she is never again whom she once was. The harmone changes that affect her make her into another person than whom you married. This is why historically in some cultures when women got pregnant they were cloistered from everyone.
Effectivly they became nuts(schizofhrenic). Most of them get through it with the time honored expected ups and downs. But some don't. Their personalities do not recover from the 9 month to 2 year drug addiction process called hormones. Menopause rates right up there in that process. Dr. J&H syndrome. We are aware of the one week a month version of J&H in our loved one. Being pregnant is 9 months to 2 years non stop for the woman. Some snap. This is one of the reasons the biological father is safer for the child in divorces. A leading cause of death for small children is the ex-wifes new boyfreind or new husband. He has no biological attachment to your offspring. The leading cause of sex abuse for small children is the new boyfriend or husband.
It's in the FBI statistics. The media won't go there.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Vulcan,
Your "arguement" doesn't apply. There are laws on the books for misuse of firearms. There are laws on the books for misuse of alcohol. There is also a constitutional ammendment allowing the use of both alcohol and firearms. There is no ammendment allowing misuse of either. If you injure another using either one of those two items you are subject to civil and criminal penalties.
Perhaps I missed someting earlier but I don't see any of the folks that have been labled as "gun nuts" saying unlawful use of firearms was what they wanted. I do see some advocating denying others the ability to use firearms for lawful purposes. Quite different situation.
So what you are saying is its ok to drink and drive just as long as you do not hurt anyone?
-
Originally posted by wrag
Granted the politcians have come up with some pretty mean laws regarding drunk driving but they did so at the behest of WE THE PEOPLE. They actually listened for a change. True some went overboard. Some always do :(
And who do you think came up with gunlaws and the behest of the people?
as for this
SIR. I consider those words typed by you (Vulcan) to be selfish, selfcentered, and lacking in consideration for others.
Than what do you consider your words and attitude towards gun storage and safety when considering others? On one hand you demand the right to choose what YOU consider safe, and let anybody choose what THEY consider safe gun handling - and obviously there are people out there that do not choose very well, yet on the other hand you consider a drink driver selfish, selfcentered, and lacking in consideration of others. That it is hypocracy.
You want the law to pander to your own personal needs when it suits you.
-
Vulcan,
Do you use gun nut because you have a basic distrust of your fellow man being armed and taking responsibility for his/her life? When a person becomes a member of the government body in any capacity they do not suddenly become a superior class of human being endowed with enhanced societal benevolence. They are still flawed human beings like yourself or me.
Do you not trust your fellow citizens to conduct themselves in the protection of their lives and freedom as yourself?
-
Originally posted by bustr
Vulcan,
Do you use gun nut because you have a basic distrust of your fellow man being armed and taking responsibility for his/her life? When a person becomes a member of the government body in any capacity they do not suddenly become a superior class of human being endowed with enhanced societal benevolence. They are still flawed human beings like yourself or me.
Do you not trust your fellow citizens to conduct themselves in the protection of their lives and freedom as yourself?
No I use gun-nut because some of them have such a one-eyed biased view. Just the same as I use the term anti-gun-nut.
Do you not trust your fellow citizens to conduct themselves in a safe, considerate and sane way when drunk or consuming drugs?
Or are gun owners "above the law", better than ordinary citizens?
-
Having been to the extream ends of alcohol and drugs like many of us have when younger, I would reserve my opinion to experence. Since each person has differing tollerences to these chemicals, it has to be accepted by the most diehard libertarian that they impare the ability to function. Once that point is reached in each individual, driving, flying a plane, using a firearm, walking, even sex can become life endangering to others.
But it is untill that threshold is passed that the person becomes a danger. Untill then each is as responsible as yourself. Question is, are you advocating from your personal experience that governemnt should just control all of our activities because it's a winning bet to say some person, some where, at some time will screw up, and you personally want the government to control down the percentage of chances you will be personally impacted?
I don't know about above the law. First I would suggest it's disingenuous of you to speak about this topic other than it seems you personaly don't like gun owners appearing to be above the law. Or citizens owning guns period. Again this goes to a mistrust of your fellow citizens who when they become members of the government dont stop being imperfect like you or me. And sometime, somewhere, will screw up in the same ways we mere normal citizens do. More often government and regulations succed in creating generations of more societly accident pron people whom you are not able to trust.
-
Originally posted by vorticon
when was the last time a knife missed its target and killed a bystander?
TOKYO (Reuters) - A Japanese man pulled a knife in a convenience store early Sunday morning and threatened to kill himself unless he was given a meal of the choicest sushi.
The 68-year-old unemployed man barged into the store in the western city of Osaka after first setting fire to his nearby apartment, police said Monday. Newspapers said the man claimed he couldn't eat because his state benefit payments had been stopped.
Police overpowered the man after about an hour, during which time he ate bananas and helped himself to alcoholic drinks and vitamin supplements. Police declined to say whether he got any sushi.
I know he didn't throw the knife, but I thought this was intresting anyway.
-
We get along fine without them over here! That seems to me to answer all of this. If we can do it why can't you guys!?
:cool:
-
Former Student Attacks Elementary School, Slays Teacher With Sashimi Knife
(AP) Feb 15 A 17-year-old boy with a 21-centimeter (8-inch) sashimi knife stabbed a teacher to death and wounded two other adults at his former elementary school on Monday in the latest case of school violence to shock Japan.
No students were hurt in the mid-afternoon attack in Neyagawa City just outside Osaka in western Japan, said a police spokesman, Isoo Noda.
...
Mitsuaki Kamozaki, a 52-year-old teacher, was declared dead at the hospital after being stabbed in the back. A 57-year-old female instructor had deep knife wounds in her stomach and a school nutritionist, 45, was also being treated for serious injuries.
-
Just one more...
Sunday February 13, 11:17 AM
Knife-wielding man wanted over attempted robbery
Police are searching for a man who used a large knife in an attempted robbery in Adelaide's south-west early this morning.
Police say a man was walking along Anzac Highway at Camden Park around 2:00am ACDT when he was approached and threatened by another man wielding a large knife.
Seems to me that if Japan and Australia did not have such draconian gun laws, these guys wouldn't have to be carrying knives.
-
No they'd be carrying guns instead!
-
Your ability to see the obvious joke is unsurpassed.
-
Zulu,
Only if you can for real not your usual bull shine from this exact moment on tell me that there is never going to be a chance in H$LL that my home Toads or Laz's will be invaded, my girfreind, their wives, raped and murdered and everything I've or they have spent much of our lives building will never ever not a snow balls chance in H$LL be taken away from us!
As we know which neighborhoods in our big cities so you know what neiborhoods to go to in southern England cities and find the elderly and retirees who have no interest in what you just said because they live in fear not being able to move on fixed incomes. But then I don't think you are their age and are not really considering them since they are out of sight and mind forgotten just like ours are here in older neighborhoods living as prey to graduets of multiculteralism and ilegal imigration which is on the rise in england just like here with the exact same problems of increased crime against those who cannot defend themselves.
Youth tends to have the economic ability to migrate away from these things and then waxes rather myopic from their hand picked safe environments about the odds.
-
I live in Birmingham mate. Not a very salubrious area. And I work as a youthworker in a part of the city that has just seen one guy stabbed and another assaulted. I'm in the bad bits of town every day and I still would not want to be armed and neither do I want the young people I work with getting hold of guns.
Just accept the fact that our society works ok without the need and I dont want em.
My now lengthy discussion on the topic was actualy started because I felt that nearly every thread in here ended up on the subject sooner or later. Can't we talk about something else in here!?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by bustr
First I would suggest it's disingenuous of you to speak about this topic other than it seems you personaly don't like gun owners appearing to be above the law. Or citizens owning guns period. Again this goes to a mistrust of your fellow citizens who when they become members of the government dont stop being imperfect like you or me. And sometime, somewhere, will screw up in the same ways we mere normal citizens do. More often government and regulations succed in creating generations of more societly accident pron people whom you are not able to trust.
Of course I don't like gun owners being above the law. Does anyone want to see a specific group of people being above the law?
I don't mind citizens owning guns. However gun owners seem to think that the responsibility of owning, operating, and storing a gun in a safe fashion is nobody elses business but their own. Yet are quite happy for other laws to protect them - such as those for licensing drivers, and keeping drunks off the road.
Are you saying that gun owners know better than everyone else, and should be above any laws aimed to promote gun safety? Or are you saying that most laws in general go too far and should be scrapped, these laws include drunk driving, driver licensing, pilot licensing, air safety laws etc, only prosecuting people when problems arise (ie dropping all preventitive safetly laws).
-
No need to worry gents. I've had a word with the local authorities and they assure me it'll be a cold day in hell before the N.S.W. Police come to confiscate the firearms of U.S. citizens.
-
Nazi Germany: killed 6 million unarmed Jews, often with the cooperation of their home governments. Also murdered millions of gypsies, slavs, and other unarmed untermensch.
Soviet Union: Stalin murdered more than 20 million unarmed Russian civilians.
Communist China: Mao oversaw the massacre of more than 20 million unarmed Chinese civilians.
Khmer Rouge: Pol Pot's government slaughtered 3 million unarmed Cambodian civilians.
Sudan
Iraq
Armenia
Shall I go on?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Ahhh yeah right lazs, 2.3% of gun owners got their guns destroyed for either not storing them properly or having no real reason for owning the type of firearm they had.
2.3%
HULLO LAZS
2.3% over two years... 1.15% per year...
You are screaming government represession over 2.3% - excuse me if you don't look like a fruitcake.
They ALWAYS start small. Remember that. One TYPE of firearm. One TYPE of firearm owner. One VAGUE REASON for confiscation.
Then another, and another, and another.
Eventually, you wake up and they've taken everything, and when they want your home, your business, your life, your friend, or your family, you'll fight back with what?
Read history. Those who do not learn from it are doomed to repeat it.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
We get along fine without them over here! That seems to me to answer all of this. If we can do it why can't you guys!?
:cool:
Because we REFUSE to give up our rights for security. I don't WANT to give up my firearms. I will NOT give up my firearms. I will not become a SUBJECT of the government. I am self sufficient, and self reliant.
Got any idea how many privately owned firearms from the U.S. were given to the United Kingdom during World War II, so that they who had surrendered their weapons would not also have to surrender their liberty to Germany's greatest contribution to the fight AGAINST gun control, Adolf Hitler?
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
No they'd be carrying guns instead!
Around here, it is very possible that legal firearm owner in possession of a concealed carry permit and his legal firearm would have shot the knife carrying criminal and removed his threat to society.
Those of you with no firearms can run, and hope he doesn't kill your wife and children who can't run as fast as you. Maybe you can at least call the police and give them a description.:rolleyes:
I'm certain the innocent victims will certainly appreciate the effort.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
I live in Birmingham mate. Not a very salubrious area. And I work as a youthworker in a part of the city that has just seen one guy stabbed and another assaulted. I'm in the bad bits of town every day and I still would not want to be armed and neither do I want the young people I work with getting hold of guns.
Just accept the fact that our society works ok without the need and I dont want em.
My now lengthy discussion on the topic was actualy started because I felt that nearly every thread in here ended up on the subject sooner or later. Can't we talk about something else in here!?
:rolleyes:
So, you'd rather you or your friends were killed by a man armed with a knife (we'll just run away in fear, and only the one he can outrun will be stabbed or slashed) than be able to defend yourself.:rolleyes: Oh, and if the criminal happens to be among those who succeeds in getting a gun, which of you can outrun the bullets?:rolleyes:
Your society works okay? Your law abiding citizens are forbidden from owning a firearm, and/or will be jailed for using one in defense of their life from a criminal, and that's okay?:rolleyes:
Tell you what, you KEEP your nanny state, you keep it over there, you keep you silly nannystate ideas out of my nation, and you defend it (your life, your freedom, your family, and your nation) yourself.
-
first...zulu... you are the one who starts a lot of the gun threads and you are in every single one of em... Now...Now that they are going badly for you... you want us to just hear you out and then change the subject... Why don't you just say "we get along fine without guns over here so why can't you?" and then immediately plug your ears and shout naaaaaaaa naaaaaa nnaaa until all the bad men making you think go away? I don't think you get along fine without guns over there at all BTW.
Oh wait you did that... you did ask us why we don't do what you do... Why don't we? because we aren't queen worshiping, socialist pansies is probly the short answer.
vulcan.. I do not think you should be able to drive while impaired. I do not believe you should be able to shoot while impaired unless it is an emergency. It' not that difficult to figure out.
lazs
-
oops... guess virgil said it....
We don't want your nanny state. We find what you have done to yourself to be frieghtening.
lazs
-
Around here, it is very possible that legal firearm owner in possession of a concealed carry permit and his legal firearm would have shot the knife carrying criminal and removed his threat to society.
What's more likely is that the "knife carrying criminal" would have been a "gun carrying criminal", and he'd have shot someone, not been shot himself.
There are around 10,000 murders committed with guns in the US per year, and only about 250 cases of an armed citizen justifiably shooting dead a criminal.
Those of you with no firearms can run, and hope he doesn't kill your wife and children who can't run as fast as you.
And yet your wife and children are more likely to be murdered in the US than in Britain.
Those are the facts.
vulcan.. I do not think you should be able to drive while impaired. I do not believe you should be able to shoot while impaired unless it is an emergency. It' not that difficult to figure out.
I think Vulcan's point is, the title of this thread, Who Decides? THEY do! applies just as much to drunk driving as to gun storage. Who decides about how drunk you can be when you drive? THEY do!
Who decides about how safely you must store your guns? THEY do!
See the hypocricy? It's fine for the government to set standards on the amount of alcohol you can have before driving, but it's not fine for the government to set standards on how guns should be safely stored.
-
no... you are talking about being impaired vs simply being careless... I do not believe that a person should leave loaded firearms within easy reach of children any more than they should walk away from a running lawnmower or chainsaw. I believe that firearms should be kept out of reach of small children as much as the former or harsh chemicals or knife blocks in the kitchen... Anyone old enough to reach a gun or a knife on the counter or in a kitchen drawer or work the child safety devices should be old enoungh to not touch.
There is no big accident rate for gun deaths of children. It does not go down with gun storage laws.
Homicides in the U.S. do not go up in states that have concealled carry (more guns in the population). Taking guns away does not decrease homicides.
Women shooting abusive husbands are not counted in the self defense role.... A lot of killings go unsolved so we don't know what happened...the FBI stats show that 1.5-3 million crimes a year are prevented with firearms. How would you make that up in a society where only the government and criminals were armed?
Plus... It is not your human right to drive a car on other peoples roads... It is a human right to defend yourself or your family... for a lot of people the very best way.... only way.... is a firearm. How can anyone justify taking this right away from them?
lazs
-
Originally posted by Glasses
I see someone has been Playing Metal Gear Solid huh huh huh? :rofl
Never played the game at all, have no idea what format it is on either.
I bought the USP 45 off of my Uncle 6 years ago for $500 and 3 factory magazines. Best damn, $500 I've ever spent. I've put at least 2500 rounds (my Uncle put about 3000) through the thing and it just keeps going without fail.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
How many gun threads are there on this board again?:rolleyes:
Lazs you and others like you, lurv your guns. Some of us don't. It seems we have reached that point way way long time ago. So how about a different subject as nothing we say will change the situation anyhow. kids will still shoot kids in the US, and you guys will defend your right to be armed to teeth till they prize the thing from your lifeless fingers as you gun nuts might say. And we will probably continue to think your gov nuts for allowing it all!
Next subject please.
The shut the f*** up, you don't like guns. Leave it at that and walk to the Pub and wallow in gluttany.
Or hop on that sissy bike of yours and hit a wall at 153kph.
Karaya
-
Women shooting abusive husbands are not counted in the self defense role.
Of course they are.
The FBI lists less than 300 homicides where the female partner kills the male, and that includes cases of arson etc. OF course, supplemental data isn't available in all cases, but the total is still low.
Women are simply far less likely to kill.
Or are you suggesting that when a woman shoots her husband, it's not recorded as either a homicide or a justifiable homicide? That would mean the US murder rate is even higher than the FBI shows.
no... you are talking about being impaired vs simply being careless
No, I am talking about the government setting safe standards that restrict people's choices.
You accept that in some cases, where it involves the sacred cow of guns, you get outraged.
There is no big accident rate for gun deaths of children. It does not go down with gun storage laws.
You are ignoring the fact that stolen guns are automatically transferred to a criminal (the guy who stole it).
Even in America, 10% of guns used in crime were stolen by the person who used it, and many more are sold on the black market.
In other countries, with tighter firearms controls, stolen guns are one of the major sources of guns for criminals, so the government enforcing safe storage laws cuts down on the supply of illegal weapons, which is a safety issue.
How would you make that up in a society where only the government and criminals were armed?
I don't know, I live in a country where the criminals aren't armed.
Plus... It is not your human right to drive a car on other peoples roads
They aren't other people's roads. I paid for them.
It is a human right to defend yourself or your family
It's a human right to have freedom to travel. Without it, I can't work, go the shops, go out in an evening, etc.
for a lot of people the very best way.... only way.... is a firearm.
What's wrong with pushing them out of the window? Or using a knife?
I have been reliably informed both pushing people out of a window, and butter knives, are every bit as lethal as guns. :)
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
What's wrong with pushing them out of the window?
Would it make you fell any better, little girl, if they was all pushed outta windows? -- Archie Bunker
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
So what you are saying is its ok to drink and drive just as long as you do not hurt anyone?
Vulcan,
That is not what I said and you know it. Neither is your comment a cogent argument.
-
Cop shoots English-speaking attacker who yelled 'kill you'
A knife-wielding Japanese man who screamed out threats in English to a Tokyo police officer has been shot after he refused an order to back off, police said.
The 46-year-old man from Taito-ku was blasted in the arm, but is expected to make a complete recovery. He has been arrested for breaking the Swords and Firearms Control Law and for obstruction of duties of a special public officer.
He had walked toward the officer while wielding a knife and screaming, "Kill you," in English, police said.
Asakusa Police Station said the officer had acted properly in the incident, which occurred in the Yoshiwara soapland district of Taito-ku.
"At this point in time, we believe the shots were fired in accordance with the appropriate regulations," Asakusa Police Station Chief Tomomi Suzuki said.
See how guns can eliminate knife crime?
-
sorr5y nashwan... don't buy any of what you have said... first off, most murders are unslolved so neither of us knows the reason... the 300 cases of women murdering their partner are not all counted as self defense even if they could be construed as the only thing left to the women. It may be justified .... just not in the laws eyes. If she wakes up and grabs her gun and shoots him while he sleeps because she is afraid of what he might do when he wakes up for instance.
Now, being impaired vs being careless? you simply can't compare the two. Intent and due caution are the judgement factors.. I believe that driving impaired is a total lack of judgement and and caution. I believe that keeping a gun up high enough so that any child young enough to not understand the danger won't come across it is good enough.
safe storage keeps guns out of the hands of criminals? Maybe a little but... so what? The fact that they can get a gun isn't the problem... they will allways get one if they want and... every stolen gun doews not get used in a crime... why is that? well.... it is because most criminals are afraid to use a gun in a crime. That is what is needed... to make using a gun in a crime the real issue... even jb88 understands that. Show me some proof that safe sto4rage keeps guns out of the hands of criminals or reduces crime in any way whatsever... Lott's latest study shows absolutely no effect or a slight negative affect too small to quantify.
then... you claim to own the roads? YOU paid for em? If that is the case and no one else owns any part of em then you are correct and you alone should be able to drive drunk on em.... you should post signs tho that caution others to use YOUR roads at their peril as you my be totaly drunk and dangerous on em.
You may think you have a human right to drive a car but try to build one in your garage and not have any regestration or drivers licence or safety de3vices on it and see how much right you have... You have the right to share everyones roads so long as you go by their rules. My gun in my house is not your concern.
and lastly... the silliest thing you have said (if one could pick somethiong ove another).... you defend taking away the old and infirm and womens rights to defend themselves in the only way possible by offering them the advice that they throw their assailant out the window. Sheesh... even at my age I bet I could kick the crap out of most of you geeks that think you are young and strong and can fend off any assailant. Imagine what you will think when you actually realize how vulnerable you are. You are kidding yourself... that is fine... it is your right to be ignorant... I only take offence at your ignorance when you try to tell me how to defend myself or try to take away my rights.
lazs
-
Originally posted by wrag
Viet Combat Vets already had a bad rep. Undeserved IMHO.
I have a story from my childhood that would dispute "undeserved". But it's about one person in particular so maybe, in general, it is.
-
The icing on the cake for this whole story is I've since found out that those statistics include weapons voluntarily surrendered to police.
It seems that the compensation the Aussie govt was overing was considerably higher than the second hand value of most weapons. So a friend of mines uncle decided to surrender his two shotguns he hadn't used for 10 years, cash in getting a far better price than he would second hand, and not bother spending $ on a storage facility that meets the new requirements.
Kind of makes all the gun nuts screaming liberty-rape in this thread look stupid doesn't it ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And who do you think came up with gunlaws and the behest of the people?
as for this
Than what do you consider your words and attitude towards gun storage and safety when considering others? On one hand you demand the right to choose what YOU consider safe, and let anybody choose what THEY consider safe gun handling - and obviously there are people out there that do not choose very well, yet on the other hand you consider a drink driver selfish, selfcentered, and lacking in consideration of others. That it is hypocracy.
You want the law to pander to your own personal needs when it suits you.
GEEEZZZ YOU CAN READ?
Did you actually read my post or just look for something you could use for your argument??? Your wasting everyones time here???? Don't you have a better argument?
I want my rights. My right to defend myself and my family. Wait for the police? BULLSH*T! The supreme courts has RULED the police do NOT have to protect any individual! They can not be held accountable if they do not! The 911 response time can in some area's be over an hour or even NOT AT ALL! Furthermore the Bill of Rights says NOTHING about the right to drink and drive! RESPONSIBILITY!!!! Look at my earlier post regarding that word OK?
So long as I'm NOT loading a firearm and going about threating or actually shooting innocent people your argument holds NO LOGIC! Drinking and driving IS FAR MORE LIKELY TO KILL AN INNOCENT PERSON THEN MY FIREARM!
THEREFORE YOUR ARGUMENT USING BOOZE VS FIREARMS IS INVALID IMHO.
Your logic is NOT working IMHO.
As to gun storage and safety YOU BETTER STAY THE H*LL OUTA MY HOUSE.
New laws are being consider even as we type these post, in some areas of the U.S., that will allow the home owner to shoot to kill any home invader PERIOD! Even if that invader is running away! It's seems it's going back the a home is a castle, a home is sacred. Any violation of that can result in the death of the violator. And I agree!
NO ONE HAS ANY BUSSINESS IN MY HOME WITHOUT A COURT ORDER OR MY INVITATION/PERMISSION!
-
LOL. They don't grasp that do they? Surrender your weapons, and you surrender your rights. Then they don't care whether they should be in your home or not.
Unlike many other nations, we have laws against unreasonable search and siezure, and that means they have to have a valid reason to enter your home, business or vehicle. The fact that you own a firearm and you may not be storing it exactly as they wish is not a valid reason.
-
No, you don't surrender your rights, you surrender your power.
All these places that have had the guns taken away from them still have rights... for now. But when those rights do dissappear, they have no power to reaffirm them.
-
It appears a disconnect happens with these discussions that can be identified by the difference in cultures that have been disarmed or given up their arms and rights to self defence and ours which has codified as the law of the land the right of We the People to defend our lives, liberty and property.
We Americans respond with the passion of a people that still have these rights intact and will die before surrendering them. We are made fun of and baited here because it's easy to get a rise out of us. This reaction is very healthy and reflects not as of yet, having our Creator given rights controlled by the State in the name of some nebulous good.
Their amusement and disdane for our neolithic chauvinism to these throw back concepts goes hand in hand with their very ridgidly state controlled cultures. After all it is more enlightened and progressive to intrust your freedom and security to a central authority than the odious responsibilitys of actually learning the arts of survival. The odds are against most of them surviving.
So they pray the state won't do anything more than it's current social contract. The state is made up of just as corrupt and weak people as we are. It makes no sense in terms of personal survival trusting them to do anything more than serve their own intersts just like you do for yourself. And in that case giving up the rights our Creator granted us to a group of humans for the illusion of security is a suicide pact.
-
Without offering an opinion on the subject of guns or gun control, I have to tell ya Vulcan, your attempt to compare driving under the influence and gun storage is absurd. For many reasons.
Just one of those reasons is that you are taking away another's right to travel safely on the road. Speeding also takes away the right of safe travel, that's why there are laws restricting both.
Having a gun stored in your own home, in a manner not deemed proper by whoever, does not take away anyone's rights. In fact, if they happen to be in your home, and happen to obtain access to your gun without your knowledge, then they are depriving you of your rights, and should be punished.
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
Without offering an opinion on the subject of guns or gun control, I have to tell ya Vulcan, your attempt to compare driving under the influence and gun storage is absurd. For many reasons.
Just one of those reasons is that you are taking away another's right to travel safely on the road. Speeding also takes away the right of safe travel, that's why there are laws restricting both.
Having a gun stored in your own home, in a manner not deemed proper by whoever, does not take away anyone's rights. In fact, if they happen to be in your home, and happen to obtain access to your gun without your knowledge, then they are depriving you of your rights, and should be punished.
And what if your 8 year old kid accidentally shoots my kid while playing with your gun... or some teenage burgles your home finds the gun, and shoots my wife while on a gun-ego-trip?
Both drunk driving and gun storage are legal responsibilities placed upon drivers and owners of vehicles. These laws were put into place by democratically elected governments, and enforced by police. So I find it extremely amusing that I get such reactions from the gun-owning community on this BBS with regards to the drunk driving law when they have such rabid convictions against another law designed to ensure safety and brought to law by the same governmental process.
Hypocrates. Pure and simple.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And what if your 8 year old kid accidentally shoots my kid while playing with your gun... or some teenage burgles your home finds the gun, and shoots my wife while on a gun-ego-trip?
Both drunk driving and gun storage are legal responsibilities placed upon drivers and owners of vehicles. These laws were put into place by democratically elected governments, and enforced by police. So I find it extremely amusing that I get such reactions from the gun-owning community on this BBS with regards to the drunk driving law when they have such rabid convictions against another law designed to ensure safety and brought to law by the same governmental process.
Hypocrates. Pure and simple.
Drunk Driving and Gun Storage are NOT the Same. To even ATTEMPT such a qoute, you must have to be REALLY drunk.
Each and every day, I tell myself with regard to this BBS: "People HAVE To get smarter or They have more brains than that!?". Vulcan, I think you know where I'm going with this.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And what if your 8 year old kid accidentally shoots my kid while playing with your gun...
Then he has taken away your kids rights and should be punished. What if your kid accidentally pokes my kids eye out while simulating a sword fight with the shishkabobs in your kitchen? Should there be a law requiring that shishkabobs be "properly" stored?
or some teenage burgles your home finds the gun, and shoots my wife while on a gun-ego-trip?
[/B]
Then he has violated my rights and your wife's rights and should be punished.
Both drunk driving and gun storage are legal responsibilities placed upon drivers and owners of vehicles. These laws were put into place by democratically elected governments, and enforced by police. So I find it extremely amusing that I get such reactions from the gun-owning community on this BBS with regards to the drunk driving law when they have such rabid convictions against another law designed to ensure safety and brought to law by the same governmental process.
[/B]
But they are not the same thing. I'm sorry if you cannot see the difference. It doesn't matter how the law was enacted, the basic principles are not the same.
Hypocrates. Pure and simple.
I'm sorry mate, you're just wrong on this one.
-
Gents,
Vulcan is a worshiper of the cult of the "WHAT IF". If he can imagine it then we have to be controled from doing it. Basicly our potential to act indipendantly and unpredictably terrifies him and all socialists, or the term is "stateists". A stateist believes in a central controling body for all aspects of "our" lives.
To a stateist we can be no better at self control than himself. So you will always hear from such as Vulcan, "There has gotta be a law". No one can be trusted because "what if your kid takes your GUN from your closet and shoots my kid?" WHAT IF.....increadabely thats the road to H$LL paved with good intentions.
No where in that scenario will Vulcan have taught his kid to tell your kid to go away if he has a gun or leave the area and tell his own father. Vulcan's scenario is painting his own kid as a helpless and mindless victom of circumstances. No credit for having a mind.
Vulcan's scenario is a 100% winner for himself because some where, some how , some time some one is going to screw up and fufill his prophecy. He is a vulture waiting on the tree of catastrophy. He just knows one is around the bend. So no law is too many laws if just one life is saved.
And so because he can always win his argument and prove his point, yes it is human nature to screw up, he will shred our God given rights and the constitution that protects them, while hiding behind his child to protect himself from our evil human screw ups.
In effect he will turn over all of our freedoms to the state if it can save the life of "one child" or keep himself alive one second longer.
Vulcan is terrified of Freedom and the responsibilities and relalities that come with shouldering it.
-
Lazs!!!! Man you are realy something.
Nope this thread is "not going badly for me" I don't realy have to worry that much about being shot dead so I'm doing fine thanks.
I would say that where others use the term "Amerihater" in here you might be said to be a "Britophobe" :lol
Either that or you are just an argumentative B**tard? ( probably more likely )
:lol
Masherbrum, your arguments are pathetic and every time you run out of anytghing to say you resort to personal abuse and attack. Try a new tactic. My nose is getting painfull as you keeep getting up it all the time!
:)
-
Sadly I've come to the conclusion that Vulcan is wasting everyones time.
Post are not being read for content so much as ammunition for arguing.
I therefore from this point forward see no purpose in replying to Vulcan. As any reply will not be read but only examined for USE?!
IMHO As someone has said already disingenuous.
Our cultures do not match. I'm begining to think they never shall.
Oh well........
-
I think the real core of the arguemnt against vulkcan has allready been made... A mans home is his castle.. There are many dangerous things in a mans home but the government has no right to go in there and search for em or restrict em unless they pose a direct danger to neighbors or say firefighters...For instance... you can't have improperly stored gasoline (more than a certain amount in residential areas) or explosives... this is not because someone may steal them or because the kids may get em and set themselves on fire while playing budaist monk... No...it is because any natural disaster like a fire will endanger the surrounding homes... Chain saws can be stolen... knives and welding torches and a million other dangerous tools... You don't even have to have a fence around an indoor pool.
There is no such thing as a "safe" storage device if you are concerned about theft... Burglars get into gun safes in a myriad of ways if they want too. I am not worried about guns in the hands of criminals so much as guns used by criminals.
If someone steals a gun or is old enough to get and fire a gun in someones house... It is they that are to blame not the owner of the gun in his own home.
and zulu... I am saying that you get upset because your gun arguements are going badly. It is you who deride gun owners and conservatives and then cry foul when they put up a good defence of their beliefs..
Think about it... you have threatened to leave threads...I have not. You have been outraged... I have not.
lazs
-
wrag... our cultures do not match and hopefully they never will.... If you recall... we left their culture because it was a poor match for individual freedom. If they come around to our way of thinking... fine but.. I certainly don't want to join them and the women.
and... vulcan... In the U.S., most guns get more valuable as they age. It is not often that they lose value... offering money for weapons is still confiscation if the alternative is incarceration and other penalties while still losing the weapon. Sell em to nanny or become a criminal... real 'voluntary' eh?
Oh.... have you guys read the Dec. 04 Department of Justice opinion? lengthy document that studies the 2nd amendment... They conclude that the second amendment can not be construed in any other way but as an individual right.
lazs
-
Hold on a sec.....
Why even say "Drunk" driving. Even to drive a personal possession "a car" you need to have it safe to drive. There are regulations on emmissions and safety devices. In some states, California is one, you need to get it checked out every 2 years or so to get your registration. (Laz... do they still do that?)
Requiring a gun to be securely and properly stored doesn't take away the right to have one or own one. I think that someone being able to just walk into your house and take it away if it's not stored in a legally "predefiined" manner is a little extreme though. A fine or maybe confiscated until it's proven that it can be properly stored is better. But if the law states that it should be stored in a specific way and it's not..... your breaking the law. Period. And you are abusing your right to won one by not following the laws of ownership.
-
I do not have to regester or keep in safe order any vehicle stored in my home.. I do not have to worry about the kids or criminals stealing it and me being to blame. I can even drive the car drunk as a skunk on my own property. I do not have to store knives or chainsaws or other potentialy dangerous items properly in the off chance that they may be stolen or injure a child.
Why single out guns? They are about the least dangerous thing in the house to children so far as accidental death stats go.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Masherbrum, your arguments are pathetic and every time you run out of anytghing to say you resort to personal abuse and attack. Try a new tactic. My nose is getting painfull as you keeep getting up it all the time!
Go ride that scooter of yours. Pathetic? How so, because DRUNK DRIVING and GUN STORAGE are not COMPARABLE? Take your lame smilie Zulu and shove it.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
But I still would not have your gun laws for love nor money. I quite like not having to worry about getting blown away for saying the wrong thing or being in the wrong place.
Zulu, I own upwards of 25 long guns, and about 15 pistols of various kinds. I am licensed to carry concealed weapons, and am a supporter of gun rights here in the USA.
I don't want our gun laws, either, but probably not in the same way you don't want them :) One theme I do note in your discussion of this issue is bothering me, though.
You seem to think that "being in the wrong place or saying the wrong thing" is the cause of the majority of gun crime here. Well, it isn't SMART to be in the wrong place, or to say the wrong thing. Think about it. If you have half a brain, you know where the dangerous places in your environment are. Do bad people hang around there with weapons?
Don't go there.
If you get into a confrontation with someone, and they seem to be losing control of their anger, and you think they might want to fight,
Don't go there.
Use some sense, man. Live your life with some awareness of your surroundings and respect for others, and you will never be in a situation where you might get shot.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
you might be said to be a "Britophobe" :lol
you are just an argumentative B**tard? ( probably more likely
you resort to personal abuse and attack. Try a new tactic. My nose is getting painfull as you keeep getting up it all the time!
:)
personal abuse and attack
I looked all over the page here and see that you resort to the same tactic rather easily. Hello kettle
-
No no Thats not abuse. I rather respect the argumentative b**tards in here. No problem with that. As for "Britophobe its just my counter to the too numerous to count, times I've heard the daft term "Amerihater" Its all just a bit of fun no offense intended. OK?
I have a slight problem with Masher and his "go shove it ........ Your a chode" stuff. Thats not argument discussion or debate thats just pure insult rubbish.
For the record I consider myself a bit of an argumentative B**tard so I guess I'm abusing myself in your book!
;)
Please quote me correctly I was refering to Masher in the second bit of that post! You missed those words out.
-
rshubert.
Actualy I agree. And generaly I do use sense. I work with young people in some tough estates so its kind of necessary. But not everyone has the same level of perception and sense, and we all put our foot in it sometimes. I was simply trying to express that I feel safer in a relatively gun free society than I would in an armed one. Personaly I think that america is mad to continue with its current policy. But remember that is my opinion. Doesn't mean its true its just what I think.
( Blimey how many times have I had to say that )
:rolleyes:
:aok
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
No no Thats not abuse. I rather respect the argumentative b**tards in here. No problem with that. As for "Britophobe its just my counter to the too numerous to count, times I've heard the daft term "Amerihater" Its all just a bit of fun no offense intended. OK?
I have a slight problem with Masher and his "go shove it ........ Your a chode" stuff. Thats not argument discussion or debate thats just pure insult rubbish.
For the record I consider myself a bit of an argumentative B**tard so I guess I'm abusing myself in your book!
;)
Please quote me correctly I was refering to Masher in the second bit of that post! You missed those words out.
I know it was directed at Masher. That does not change the fact that you resort to the same tactics. Are you saying that it's OK to belittle Mashur but not others and that you should somehow be exempt from being called on the same situation?
I believe you used the term hypocrites in another post in this thread. Does that not apply to this same situation?
-
NO ONE HAS ANY BUSSINESS IN MY HOME WITHOUT A COURT ORDER OR MY INVITATION/PERMISSION!
What happens when a court order (search warrant) is served, then when they dont find what they are looking for they refuse to leave?
The DEA showed up at my house several years ago at 1:00 am. They had a warrant to search my house for a particular woman. I was shown a picture of the woman in question and, having never seen her before OFFERED to walk the DEA agents through my home so they could see she was not here. When they saw wedding pictures on the wall they asked if the woman in the pictures was my wife. (kind of a retarded question if ya ask me :rofl)
After giving the agents a guided tour of my home I was subjected to questioning. When I told them I wanted an attorney present if I was going to be questioned I was informed I didnt need one and *better not pick up the phone*. After 90+ minutes of these jerks being in my home I threatened to call the local police, local sheriff, FBI and the TV news if they didnt leave immediately. At this point one of the agents threatened me with physical violence. The same agent also threatened to *visit my wife while I was at work and show her what a real man can do*. The way I interpreted his words, tone and body language was a threat to rape my wife.
When the agents finally left my home, they left with threats that they would be back and would make me very sorry for not having cooperated with them. The entire time the agents were in my home there were more agents outside with M-16's and shotguns.
I have absolutely no problem with the DEA showing up with a search warrant. I glady gave them a guided tour of our home. Once they determined that the person they were looking for wasnt in my home, they should have left IMMEDIATELY with an apology for disturbing me and thanking me for my cooperation. Instead what I got was an interrogation (w/o an attorney present and a veiled threat to NOT call one) and threats of physical violence against me and my family.
Thankfully, I have yet to see those DEA agents again. Otoh no citizen should have to put up with that kind of garbage from ANY gov't agency. It is my sincere belief that if there were no guns in private ownership in America that visits like this would be far more common and far more violent. An armed citizenry tends to keep the gov't and their agents in check. It didnt work this time. Well.....on second thought, since I never saw them again and the one who threatened my wife never showed up....they just might have considered the firearms hanging on the wall as a deterrent....
-
Maverik go back and read the post carefully with a sense of humour?
I don't believe I have used any insulting language towards Masher. certainly not of the kind he seems prone to spouting.
The first part of the post was aimed at Lazs and is from me a grudging respect for his willingness to debate.
The second part is a condemnation of Masher who simply responds to me by using insulting language with no humour.
Does that spell it clearly enough for you now?
-
Originally posted by wrag
Sadly I've come to the conclusion that Vulcan is wasting everyones time.
Post are not being read for content so much as ammunition for arguing.
I therefore from this point forward see no purpose in replying to Vulcan. As any reply will not be read but only examined for USE?!
IMHO As someone has said already disingenuous.
Our cultures do not match. I'm begining to think they never shall.
Oh well........
LOL, sometimes the truth hurts. Covering your ears and saying "I can't hear you" over and over won't help.
My whole point of the drunk driving scenario is that you - the gun nuts - believe you are above the law, and only respect the law when it suits you. IE drunk driving, which you all seem to agree with is a justified a proper law. However, when it comes to gun laws, you seem to think you should be beyond those laws, even those laws are brought into provide people with personal safety (much akin to the drunk driving laws), and are put to law by the same democratic bodys and processes that passed the drunk driving laws.
Your home is your castle? Not anymore. Laws do not stop at your property's boundaries. You do have rights, but you do not have the right to choose which laws suit you and which don't.
I'm not antigun, but you guys have really dropped my view of your attidues right down low. Your self serving knee-jerk-reaction arguments are so hypocritical its beyond belief.
At least the anti-gun crowd don't believe they are above the law.
-
Zulu,
What is abundantly clear is your double standard in regards to the use of a "personal attack". The observation still stands. f this is your idea of humor, it's lacking a bit. Feel free to have the final word if you must.
Elfie,
If this was a recent event you need to contact your local Police Dept / Sherrif Dept. and file a complaint. You also need to contact the DEA, with an attorney and have an internal investigation started regarding what you described. The actions you posted are illegal and prosecutable.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I do not have to regester or keep in safe order any vehicle stored in my home.. I do not have to worry about the kids or criminals stealing it and me being to blame. I can even drive the car drunk as a skunk on my own property. I do not have to store knives or chainsaws or other potentialy dangerous items properly in the off chance that they may be stolen or injure a child.
Why single out guns? They are about the least dangerous thing in the house to children so far as accidental death stats go.
lazs
What is the primary use of a gun?
What is the primary use of a chainsaw?
What is the primary use of a knife?
Would you object to your next door neighbour storing say nuclear weapon components on his property?
Do you agree that guns should be safely and securely stored?
Do you think all gun owners, without question, safely and securely store their firearms?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
What is the primary use of a gun?
What is the primary use of a chainsaw?
What is the primary use of a knife?
Would you object to your next door neighbour storing say nuclear weapon components on his property?
Do you agree that guns should be safely and securely stored?
Do you think all gun owners, without question, safely and securely store their firearms?
Vulcan,
The first three "statements" you posted are irrelevant to the discussion.
The fourth is relevant but I have yet to see anything in the posts indicating what criteria that the authorities in Australia ( I think that the country that was the subject of the discussion) used to determine proper storage of a firearm is or should be. This includes a total lack of any statutory information relevent to the subject.
The fifth statement is also irrelevant and there are numerous laws regarding possession of fissionables. As a patently obvious exageration it hardly is a valid agruement point.
The sixth item regarding an opinion is a red herring. The obvious answer is no and there are criminals in all continents who do not store weapons properly.
Please state an cogent arguement and keep it civil.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Zulu,
What is abundantly clear is your double standard in regards to the use of a "personal attack". The observation still stands. f this is your idea of humor, it's lacking a bit. Feel free to have the final word if you must.
Elfie,
If this was a recent event you need to contact your local Police Dept / Sherrif Dept. and file a complaint. You also need to contact the DEA, with an attorney and have an internal investigation started regarding what you described. The actions you posted are illegal and prosecutable.
I never called anyone about the events I described Maverick for the simple reason that it would be 7 - 8 DEA agents word against just me. There were 3 agents that actually entered my home and another 4 or 5 outside with weapons at the ready. The events happened when my oldest daughter was 4 or 5, she is 10 now.
I realize that those events were (and are still) illegal. Once those agents determined the individual they were looking for wasnt here, at that point they no longer had any legal business being in my home. Thats probably why when I threatened to call the local police, local sheriff, FBI and local TV news that they decided it was time to leave.
Even though no real harm was done I would still like to kick that one agent that threatened my wife in the groin repeatedly until his testicles become useless.
-
What is the primary use of a gun?
What is the primary use of a chainsaw?
What is the primary use of a knife?
Primary use of a gun is to fire a projectile.
Primary use of a chainsaw is to cut wood.
Primary use of a knife is to...well....cut things.
Each one is a tool, each one has a legitmate purpose, each one can be used in a manner that is illegal and deadly. Each one also has legitimate uses.
*edit* oops, hit the reply button accidentally heh.
-
Maverick:
Vulcan,
The first three "statements" you posted are irrelevant to the discussion.
lazs introduced the knife, chainsaw comparison. Do you choose to exclude these counter-comparisons only because it suits your point of view.
The fourth is relevant but I have yet to see anything in the posts indicating what criteria that the authorities in Australia ( I think that the country that was the subject of the discussion) used to determine proper storage of a firearm is or should be. This includes a total lack of any statutory information relevent to the subject.
Why is it irrelevant. So far the pro-gun quarter seem to think a "mans home is his castle" and the government should not be interested in what goes on in his castle. I am merely comparing two devices, both of which have no other purpose to function as a weapon. Once again you see to want to dismiss comparisons when it doesn't suit your point of view.
The fifth statement is also irrelevant and there are numerous laws regarding possession of fissionables. As a patently obvious exageration it hardly is a valid agruement point.
Why is it irrelevant? The pro-gun group here are fervently arguing againts these laws. My question is if they believe that guns should be stored safely and properly in the light of their opinion that that is their business and not the governments. I want to know who decides what is appropriate.
The sixth item regarding an opinion is a red herring. The obvious answer is no and there are criminals in all continents who do not store weapons properly.
Let me ask you this then. Are there people who do not store guns safely and properly who are not convicted criminals?
Please state an cogent arguement and keep it civil.
My points of view have been nothing but civil. Perhaps you are confused over who has posted what. Cogent argument? You mean like saying "my home is my castle" or the "police can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers". Once again, I find more hypocracy.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I never called anyone about the events I described Maverick for the simple reason that it would be 7 - 8 DEA agents word against just me. There were 3 agents that actually entered my home and another 4 or 5 outside with weapons at the ready. The events happened when my oldest daughter was 4 or 5, she is 10 now.
I realize that those events were (and are still) illegal. Once those agents determined the individual they were looking for wasnt here, at that point they no longer had any legal business being in my home. Thats probably why when I threatened to call the local police, local sheriff, FBI and local TV news that they decided it was time to leave.
Even though no real harm was done I would still like to kick that one agent that threatened my wife in the groin repeatedly until his testicles become useless.
Interesting stuff elfie. I use a Treo 600 as a phone, I now record any conversations I have with "law enforcement officers", and take photos (built in digital voice recorder and camera). It goes back to being ticketed for speeding when I wasn't, and told I was the only vehicle on the road during rush hour.
-
Let me ask you this then. Are there people who do not store guns safely and properly who are not convicted criminals?
All of my guns are hanging on the wall in gun racks. My youngest is to small to be able to pull a chair (or anything else) over to reach them. My oldest simply knows better than to touch them. She also shows absolutely no interest in them either.
In my home, the guns are safe. As to others opinions they might not be considered *stored safe and proper*.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Your home is your castle? Not anymore. Laws do not stop at your property's boundaries. You do have rights, but you do not have the right to choose which laws suit you and which don't.
I'm not antigun, but you guys have really dropped my view of your attidues right down low. Your self serving knee-jerk-reaction arguments are so hypocritical its beyond belief.
At least the anti-gun crowd don't believe they are above the law.
Vulcan,
Last I heard, except for DC, NY, MA, Il, and HI, your home is your castle in terms of your firearms. Are you attempting to force an admission from the gun owners on this board that they are violaters of the law as you interpret it? I seem to remember from my high school and college days pre-american PC dumbing down that the constitution was the law of the land. The right of "the people" to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. And the government had powers granted to them as apposed to We the People had creator given rights recognised as immutable. Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Restricting a citizen of the United States from protecting their "Life", regulating against storing their arms as they see fit in their castle for times of dire need violates that first and fundimental creator given right. By imparing our ability to access our arms in a timely fashion, the condition "infringed" is qualified. But I suspect as long as it's not your life taken, all of this is moot to your efforts to prove gun owners on this board are law breakers.
Gun storage laws are legal tap dancing around the constituion by not outright banning guns or seeming to infringe on the right. You still own your property, but your time and choice of its use is regulated by the governemnt interfering in how you store it in your castle.
Does anyone here teach their children that putting their hand into a fire will burn them? And that the world can and will kill them because they are capable of make poor decisions? And do any of the parents on this board teach their children to walk away from another child with a gun? Do any of you parents teach your children to respect other peoples property and not to go rummaging around without permission in that persons home?
Most of these children who shoot each other violate these basic rules of life. No one seems to want to admit you had a poorly trained child hanging out with another poorly trained child who both made lethaly bad decisions as a reflection on pi$$poor parental training in life. So the constitution gets trashed for the sake of parental stupidity, self deception and the histerical mantra, "There's gotta be a LAW".
There otta be laws against parents who don't teach their child to respect others property. Or who don't teach their child to leave the area if another child has a gun<--(NRA Eddie Eagle program teach's this one. They are batting 1000 for live children after attendance to this course related to gun saftey. ) There otta be serious laws against parents who want laws to cover their failures in parenting after their child pulls one of these boners.
Laws will not stop criminals, nor will they protect children from their parents poor parenting skills.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Interesting stuff elfie. I use a Treo 600 as a phone, I now record any conversations I have with "law enforcement officers", and take photos (built in digital voice recorder and camera). It goes back to being ticketed for speeding when I wasn't, and told I was the only vehicle on the road during rush hour.
That's very interesting Vulcan. I truly wish I had had a way to record what was being said and done in my home that night. If I had, I would have persued (sp?) legal action against the DEA.
-
Originally posted by bustr
Most of these children who shoot each other violate these basic rules of life. No one seems to want to admit you had a poorly trained child hanging out with another poorly trained child who both made lethaly bad decisions as a reflection on pi$$poor parental training in life. So the constitution gets trashed for the sake of parental stupidity, self deception and the histerical mantra, "There's gotta be a LAW".
There otta be laws against parents who don't teach their child to respect others property. Or who don't teach their child to leave the area if another child has a gun<--(NRA Eddie Eagle program teach's this one. They are batting 1000 for live children after attendance to this course related to gun saftey. ) There otta be serious laws against parents who want laws to cover their failures in parenting after their child pulls one of these boners.
Laws will not stop criminals, nor will they protect children from their parents poor parenting skills.
Yet the simple facts are that if you set a standard for storage, then you have a way to enforce it. And remove those who are stupid and will not follow basic safety from the equation.
There are many many laws for basic safety where poor parenting skills are at fault. Drunk driving is one example, another example is properly fenced swimming pools (NZ law). Explain to me why gun owners should be the exception. Are you better parents? Are you above the law? Is every good owner the perfect parent?
Restricting a citizen of the United States from protecting their "Life",
Nobody is restricted from protecting their lives. You can own a gun in Australia if you store and handle it in a safe and proper way. I believe its already been discussed that the most commonly used firearms in crimes are stolen ones. How many gun owners in the US improperly store their guns? More than 2.3%, or less?
-
Oh and ...
Last I heard, except for DC, NY, MA, Il, and HI, your home is your castle in terms of your firearms.
Are you telling me you can own and store whatever type of firearm or weapon you wish on your property, and use it in whatever manner you wish?
I think not.
Therefore, your castle is an illusion.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Oh and ...
Are you telling me you can own and store whatever type of firearm or weapon you wish on your property, and use it in whatever manner you wish?
I think not.
Therefore, your castle is an illusion.
Actually as long as it is a legally obtained firearm, you can store it however you like. As far as using it however you like.....you cant set up cans in your backyard and start plinking away at them if you live in an urban environment. You CAN however do just that if you live in a rural environment. So that was a pretty accurate statement :)
-
Vulcan,
You seem intent on charging and proveing that the americans on this board who also own fire arms are criminals in violation of laws in our respective american states. And the iceing to it, to get one of us to admit it or a deficiency of morality by not agreeing with you that gun storage laws make for a superior culture.
Gun storage laws are not the answer, the reverse argument is "one person will die" because their fire arms were locked up 2 feet away when the criminal by definition did not follow the law and carried a gun with them into the law abiding victoms home. A 12 year old girl watched her siblings pitch forked to death by a madman who broke into their northern california home a few years ago. She was a crack shot, but her parents were following the letter of the law concerning under age children and fire arms. She did not have the combination to the lock because of her age. She had to watch her siblings die and be wounded herself before escapeing. A neighbor called 911, being a rural area, the sheriff was an hour late. The safe had her deer rifle which she had harvested a deer with just the week before. I guess it was best for everyone that her rifle was safely stored.
I suppose that those childrens lives were a fair price to pay if it protects the stupid and poorly raised children so prevelant now in western law abiding societies. But, were that girls brothers and sisters lives less valuble in the eyes of the State because they had fire arms in their home?
How ya like properly stored fire arms there Vulcan, you lost any kids yet yourself?
-
Bustr, Vulcan can come up with real life examples of why gun storage is a good idea. Otoh, for every example Vulcan can come up with, I bet Bustr can match with one of his own. Point being, there is no perfect answer here.
I think guns should be kept out of the reach of children. Children should know the guns exist in the house and be taught that they are not toys, that in the wrong hands or when handled improperly that they become lethal weapons.
In America, with our crime rates, I for one do NOT want to have to keep my guns under lock and key. I strongly feel that I need to have easy and quick access to them should that become necessary. My 12 gauge shotgun (pump action) has 4 shells in the magazine right now. The slide is halfway open. If need be, I can grab Mr. Winchester off the rack, cycle the slide and have a round chambered in mere seconds.
Back in 1988 I think it was......I was living in Lincoln NE in an older part of town. In the summer I slept with the window open since the apartment I was living in didnt have airconditioning. One night a guy tryed to climb through my window. He was met by the 6 inch barrel of a loaded Dan Wesson .44 magnum. I said two words to him.....'Get out!', he promptly left and never came back.
We'll never know what might have happened that night if my guns had been required to be under lock and key. Quick, easy access to my .44 most likely prevented a serious crime that night. I have no doubts that quick, easy access to a gun kept me from becoming just another victim that night.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Are you saying that it's OK to belittle Mashur but not others and that you should somehow be exempt from being called on the same situation?
I believe you used the term hypocrites in another post in this thread. Does that not apply to this same situation?
I was HOPING that someone other than me could point this out to him.
Karaya
-
How many gun owners in the US improperly store their guns?
Actually, I'd have to say none since I cant think of any Federal or State laws that define/require proper storage.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Maverick:
lazs introduced the knife, chainsaw comparison. Do you choose to exclude these counter-comparisons only because it suits your point of view.
Why is it irrelevant. So far the pro-gun quarter seem to think a "mans home is his castle" and the government should not be interested in what goes on in his castle. I am merely comparing two devices, both of which have no other purpose to function as a weapon. Once again you see to want to dismiss comparisons when it doesn't suit your point of view.
Why is it irrelevant? The pro-gun group here are fervently arguing againts these laws. My question is if they believe that guns should be stored safely and properly in the light of their opinion that that is their business and not the governments. I want to know who decides what is appropriate.
Let me ask you this then. Are there people who do not store guns safely and properly who are not convicted criminals?
My points of view have been nothing but civil. Perhaps you are confused over who has posted what. Cogent argument? You mean like saying "my home is my castle" or the "police can pry my gun from my cold dead fingers". Once again, I find more hypocracy.
One of these days I'll learn how to do the post within a quoted post yet but not today or this week.
Vulcan,
I said that the first three statements were irrelevent as they did not relate to the article which was the confiscation of previously registered firearms for the reason of "improper storage". I didn't see the post from anyone else mentioning chainsaws etc. as I long since stopped reading all posts in a gun thread here. Sorry.
I just went back and saw the post from Laz you were referring to. He is mostly correct. There is no "requirement" to store items that he mentioned absent any negative or "bad action" regarding them. He is totally inacurate about being able to drive drunk on his own property. There are 3 laws regarding driving on private property (in AZ. ) that you can be arrested for, vehicular manslaughter, reckless driving and DUI. I still feel the points you tried to make comparing them is irrelevent. They are disimilar objects. To claim they could be misused is also not an arguement. It is possible to misuse almost anything.
Please note I said your fourth statement WAS relevent. I also pointed out it was basicly null in information for the reason that no one, including you, has provided the criteria of what constitutes "proper security" of the firearms that the article was talking about. I would like to know what the criteria are. Who makes the decision regarding "proper storage / security"? At what level is it made and is it possible to contest it using due process. The article "suggests" there was NO recourse and the weapons (not all of which were firearms, I wonder what the other "weapons" were) were destroyed.
As to the castle bit you brought up, please note I didn't discuss it. FWIW the concept that a "man's home is his castle" does have legal status. It may not have the same meaning that you wish to put on it. In Arizona (I cannot and will not speak of all American jurisdictions) it is a recognized point of law. It is the "last place of retreat" for a homeowner / dweller (you don't have to own the "castle"). A person who lives there cannot be forced to retreat from their home by criminal action. In plain language you are legally allowed to defend yourself in your home from criminal assault.
The "castle" concept does not mean the government does not have influence there. Example, you can still be prosecuted for illegal acts you commit in your "castle". There has never been any exemption for a person's "castle". I do not recall anyone you castigate as a "gun nut" saying that their home was in fact proof agianst government interest. If you have a post here saying that please provide it.
Your fissionable point is still irrelevent. I do not recall anyone, save yourself, indicating a desire or concern about fissionable storage. Devices classed as destructive are regulated and for the most part prohibited. Improper storage of even chemical explosives falls under this category. Of course the government in the person of Congress (acting as the representatives of their constituants) has enacted laws regarding this subject. There is your authority point, but you should have known that.
I am certain there are people who do not store their firearms in what you would consider proper storage. I am still waiting for a definition of what you consider (Australia as well for that matter) constitutes safe storage. The next question is, are they liable for that situation? Short answer, in the US, they are, both criminally and civily IF something bad happens as a direct result of the item getting out of the owners control. Not before. The article at the beginning of the thread indicated that punitive actions were taken and property destroyed without any "bad actions" having occured.
Now we are back to the same questions I posed and you did not answer. What constitutes proper storage, who decides and what are the recourses for the owner? You mentioned a similar question about who decides. You already have an answer in your own post. Those you call "pro gun" indicate it is a private situation that does not involve the government. Do you have a different proposal?
Are you suggesting that absent any criminal activity on the part of the owner and no "bad actions", that the government should intervene here? I ask you this, who decides where the government starts or stops intervening? How many ways or subjects should the goverment intervene in?
You claim there is hypocracy but fail to illustrate it. It cannot be defended if you do not point out what you claim is hypocracy. Until you do so that claim is mere "noise" and not either an arguement or proof.
The final point is the lack of a cogent arguement from you on this subject. You fail to state a position other than to criticise what others say as far as I have seen. You question but provide no counter arguement. In short, what is your position(s) regarding the points of the original article?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Yet the simple facts are that if you set a standard for storage, then you have a way to enforce it. And remove those who are stupid and will not follow basic safety from the equation.
Nobody is restricted from protecting their lives. You can own a gun in Australia if you store and handle it in a safe and proper way. I believe its already been discussed that the most commonly used firearms in crimes are stolen ones. How many gun owners in the US improperly store their guns? More than 2.3%, or less?
I have an HK USP 45. I have a Mag w/ Cor-Bon 230gr +P JHP. I do NOT have one in the pipe. I keep it currently on the top shelf of our bedroom closet, in my Bagmaster Range Bag IN a "Gun Sock". Our son is almost 3 1/2, he has NO IDEA I have it, he has yet to see it.
I used to work at a Cash Vault for Michigan National Bank, I procured an "Undercounter Steel Safe" made by Diebold. It sits in our Closet in the Computer Room. My handgun will be put in there within a year. The combination is "more involved" than a "typical dial". I will be lining BOTH the interior and exterior with a "flame-retardant" drywall.
Let's talk about another issue you seem to be harping on. I live in Michigan. Three years ago, the State was trying push a "statewide Concealed Carry Permit" that is now easier to get. Keep in mind, CRIMINALS will not be getting one. If you have so much as an outstanding Parking Ticket, you will NOT get one.
Anyways, I'm sitting in church listening to this Old hag go on about a school shooting in Mount Morris (Flint) in which a kid brought a .22 caliber pistol to school and shot a kid over some silly dispute. I was probably breaking my wife's hand squeezing it. She was petitioning the Concealed Carry Permit. After church was done, there was a line of people (at least 100) smiling, waiting to sign. I hopped up to the front and whilst holding my son in my arms she says: "Oh, look at how cute that boy is. So you want to sig the petition, I see." I told her: "I have a problem with your speech". "It seems you are against the CCW legislation?" She said "I am". I said "So why are you using the Mount Morris shooting as a platform?" She said "I don't follow you?". I said "Sure you do, just because these people behind me are blind to the fact that this kid took the pistol, that was laying on a coffee table, IN A CRACKHOUSE to school and shot a classmate. What on earth does this school shooting have to do with Law Abiding Citizens carrying a handgun?". She was floored, speechless.
What I get sick of, is Anti-Gun drivel that lumps ALL handgun ownership into the realm of Criminal Activity. It's these people who are the scariest. They will literally LIE to get their way.
I pray to god I never have to point my USP 45 at a Single Human Being. I think ANY LEGAL Gun Owner, has those same feelings. But sometimes criminals get stupid and well....... You can throw all of the statistics you want out onto the table, but it is all for naught when the watermelon hits the fan, and my family is in a tight spot.
I'll stop pontificating now. Floor's all yours.
Karaya
BTW - I carry a Benchmade Stryker knife in my bag I take to work. No one knows It is there but me. It stays in the car in obvious places where they are not allowed. I carried it at the bank, we weren't supposed too, but all of the guys did. Your carrying OC, a POS Beretta and have a BR vest. The Beretta stovepiped on the range during qualification like clockwork. I would have gone for the Benchmade before the Beretta.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
What on earth does this school shooting have to do with Law Abiding Citizens carrying a handgun?". She was floored, speechless.
And what does promoting gun safety have to do with freedom?
The facts are simple:
- in Australia a democratic government passed a law setting a standard for gun storage and safety
- no gun owner can sanely argue the point about safely securing firearms
- in Australia the Police have audited gun owners and found 97.7% of owners complied, 2.3% did not
and finally:
I have an HK USP 45. I have a Mag w/ Cor-Bon 230gr +P JHP. I do NOT have one in the pipe. I keep it currently on the top shelf of our bedroom closet, in my Bagmaster Range Bag IN a "Gun Sock". Our son is almost 3 1/2, he has NO IDEA I have it, he has yet to see it.
Wheres the first place a thief looks for valuables? Top shelf of your bedroom closet? Do you ever have friends over with kids? As a child did you ever search for presents around your birthday or christmas - wheres the first place you looked? And as a child, at what stage did TV enlighten you as to how to nose a pistal and look for a safety?
How does this sound to you, as a child might lie dying: "Well officer, I thought it was safe in our closet, I thought it was out of reach, no I didn't realize they knew how to load it". Sounds like a cliche? Hey its how you store your firearm right now.
-
Maverick no idea on the Aussie regs but heres the NZ regs on storage:
Safe firearms storage
Firearms must be stored in the manner set out in the Arms Regulations.
Security requirements are particularly strict for dealers and for licence holders who possess pistols, restricted weapons or military style semi-automatics (MSSAs).
You must never put a firearm where a child could reach it
You must store firearms and ammunition separate or disable the firearms, or both
You must keep your firearms unloaded and locked away in a cupboard or storeroom
If these requirements are not observed, your licence may be revoked.
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/
I believe the Aussie stuff is similar - notice from the website its very safety orientated.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And what does promoting gun safety have to do with freedom?
The facts are simple:
- in Australia a democratic government passed a law setting a standard for gun storage and safety
- no gun owner can sanely argue the point about safely securing firearms
- in Australia the Police have audited gun owners and found 97.7% of owners complied, 2.3% did not
and finally:
Wheres the first place a thief looks for valuables? Top shelf of your bedroom closet? Do you ever have friends over with kids? As a child did you ever search for presents around your birthday or christmas - wheres the first place you looked? And as a child, at what stage did TV enlighten you as to how to nose a pistal and look for a safety?
How does this sound to you, as a child might lie dying: "Well officer, I thought it was safe in our closet, I thought it was out of reach, no I didn't realize they knew how to load it". Sounds like a cliche? Hey its how you store your firearm right now.
Hey, when ever ANY one expect the wife (who can actually shoot the thing damn good) and kid are here, it goes into the Diebold Safe. Once again, as stated, my son has NEVER SEEN the handgun, NEVER. If he HAD, he'd be trying to get to it. Which, in my previous post (had you read it) outined the upcoming year's plan.
Oh, you can still tap dance with "What if's", and other "Theories", "Hypothetical Scenarios", etc. But the bottom line is this, I grew up in a family without guns and knives. Funny eh, I never fired a handgun until 8 years ago. But, I enjoy the challenge of it all.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
And what does promoting gun safety have to do with freedom?
This has NOTHING to do with the quote above it in your reply. AGAIN, you are SKIRTING ISSUES as expected.
Karaya
-
Ok Vulcan, you answered partially just one question I posed to you. We still don't know the answers about what criteria Australian authorities used to determine improper storage and so on as I mentioned in my earlier post. What about the rest of the questions I posed?
BTW did you notice the NZ regs consider a cupboard adequate storage?
It's time to state a position from you about the subject. No evading, no bringing up secondary slightly related issues, no questioning someone elses position. Regarding the information presented in the article state your position.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
BTW did you notice the NZ regs consider a cupboard adequate storage?
It's time to state a position from you about the subject. No evading, no bringing up secondary slightly related issues, no questioning someone elses position. Regarding the information presented in the article state your position.
You chitting me, a CUPBOARD? Oh Vulcan, you got nothing on my Gunsock, in a range bag on the top shelf in closet. I raise your a hardened steel Bank safe that takes 1.5 hours to drill just ONE 1/8" hole.
Now state your stance on the initial subject Vulcan.
Karaya
-
Vulcan,
How does this sound to you, as a child might lie dying: "Well officer, I thought it was safe in our closet, I thought it was out of reach, no I didn't realize they knew how to load it". Sounds like a cliche? Hey its how you store your firearm right now.
It sounds like that child was rummiging around in someones home without the permission of the homeowner and suffered the consiquences of poor judgment due to pi$$poor attention by his/her parents not teaching him/her fundimental morality and respect for the property of others. In essence those parents created the foundation for their off springs death. Punish the real culprits, the parents who did not care enough to train the child and keep track of it in another persons home. Laws like this eventialy make the gun owner outside of the protections of due process, nor protect them from unwarrented search and seisure. They open the door to unannounced government invasions of law abiding citizens lives and property.
That is why King Georges army got its bu## kicked out of America. The Liberal Media in the U.S. wont post the number of incidences where police get shot in the dark for kicking down the wrong door of a law abiding gun owner who thought he was being robbed. You only hear about the old ladies they scare to death, or the old men they arrest for pointing a gun at them when they kick down the wrong door. There is a thriving death toll now in the wrong young man being shot in the wrong house while he was calling 911 on his cell phone because his home was being invaded.
By the way, australian gun ownership is such a small percentage of what it once was that yes 97% of the owners comply due to being scared spitless of the threat of unannounced government invasions of their homes whenever the governments agents want to for storage inspections. In effect australian gun owners are a special class of citizen with fewer rights than non gun owning citizens of your large island. And yet your criminals still have fire arms and other wheapons and are still carryiing on a thriving business.
You still sound like you are afraid of people with guns and see restrictive laws on gun ownership as the answer to your personal distrust of humans bareing arms. Law is the handmaiden to the insane illusion that it is humanities God given right not to be responcible for the consiquences of their actions. So then they create a government.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
BTW did you notice the NZ regs consider a cupboard adequate storage?
you didn't think we had to keep our guns in a central armoury did you?... I mean, us(and the Aussies) being so down trodden and oppressed it's understandable if you did.
btw- that cupboard has to be lockable, with ammo stored elsewhere. Lockable gun racks will do the job too. Handguns, assault rifles and the full auto stuff have to be stored in safes.
It's common sense stuff and not a big deal. But when I move to my cave in the bush, *** the regs, I'm going to leave my guns lying about all over the place- loaded of course.
Excel
-
Originally posted by bustr
Vulcan,
How does this sound to you, as a child might lie dying: "Well officer, I thought it was safe in our closet, I thought it was out of reach, no I didn't realize they knew how to load it". Sounds like a cliche? Hey its how you store your firearm right now.
It sounds like that child was rummiging around in someones home without the permission of the homeowner and suffered the consiquences of poor judgment due to pi$$poor attention by his/her parents not teaching him/her fundimental morality and respect for the property of others. In essence those parents created the foundation for their off springs death. Punish the real culprits, the parents who did not care enough to train the child and keep track of it in another persons home. Laws like this eventialy make the gun owner outside of the protections of due process, nor protect them from unwarrented search and seisure. They open the door to unannounced government invasions of law abiding citizens lives and property.
That is why King Georges army got its bu## kicked out of America. The Liberal Media in the U.S. wont post the number of incidences where police get shot in the dark for kicking down the wrong door of a law abiding gun owner who thought he was being robbed. You only hear about the old ladies they scare to death, or the old men they arrest for pointing a gun at them when they kick down the wrong door. There is a thriving death toll now in the wrong young man being shot in the wrong house while he was calling 911 on his cell phone because his home was being invaded.
By the way, australian gun ownership is such a small percentage of what it once was that yes 97% of the owners comply due to being scared spitless of the threat of unannounced government invasions of their homes whenever the governments agents want to for storage inspections. In effect australian gun owners are a special class of citizen with fewer rights than non gun owning citizens of your large island. And yet your criminals still have fire arms and other wheapons and are still carryiing on a thriving business.
You still sound like you are afraid of people with guns and see restrictive laws on gun ownership as the answer to your personal distrust of humans bareing arms. Law is the handmaiden to the insane illusion that it is humanities God given right not to be responcible for the consiquences of their actions. So then they create a government.
IMHO Vulcan is not reading your post. IMHO vulcan only looks into what you write for ammunition to use in arguing.
IMHO you are wasting your time talking/typing anything to Vulcan. I've repeatedly answered his words. As have others. IMHO Vulcan is either being deliberatly obtuse or NOT reading anything YOU put in this thread.
IMHO Vulcan fits into this....."According to my observations, mankind are among the most easily tamable and domesticable of all creatures in the animal world. They are readily reducible to submission, so readily conditionable (to coin a word) as to exhibit and almost incredibly enduring patience under restraint and oppression of the most flagrant character. So far are they from displaying any overweening love of freedom that they show a show a singular contentment with a condition of servitorship, often showing a curious canine pride in it, and again often simply unaware that they are existing in that condition." ~~ Albert Jay Nock; The Memoirs of a Superfluous Man
IMHO Vulcan is UNABLE to see past his own wishful thinking.
Many of us KNOW the bottom line in every case is FORCE. He who has the greater FORCE can and will, frequently, make others do as they're told.
We have repeatedly tried to relate this to Vulcan. It appears Vulcan is unable to see this.
OH well..........
-
Originally posted by bustr
you lost any kids yet yourself?
Don't play that game.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
Don't play that game.
Vulcan seems like a kid the way this has gone.
Karaya
-
A tad out of order I think. Perhaps taking things a bit to far.
Masher that quote was bustr's not Vulcan'sas I understand it.:confused:
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
A tad out of order I think. Perhaps taking things a bit to far.
Masher that quote was bustr's not Vulcan'sas I understand it.:confused:
This was DIRECTED specifically to Vulcan by Bustr.
Karaya
-
hmm... anytime you have to store the ammo in a different place than the gun then you have effectively taken away the right of the owner to use it in his defense in his own home.
My belief is that all children should be taught gun safety. Parents should assume that a gun will be found by theri children in theirs or others home. Parents should assume that if a child wanders out onto the freeway that there will be fast cars endangering him... parents should assume that at a certain age kids will learn how to turn on the stove.
Now... If a child is old enough to reach a gun on a counter and work the action they are old enough to have been taught not too or... to ask permission. Just as you put delicate personal belongings up high enough that toddlers won't break or swallow them...
I am looking at my Kimber .45 on the counter. it is loaded with one in the chamber and the hammer down. Any kid old enough to even see it, let alone reach up and grrab it and then **** the hammer and work the grip safety is old enough to know better.
I will lock that one in the safe when I leave for work Along with some expensive other stuff.
lazs
-
and... since the idiots of the world are allways trying to make stuff idiot proof... (useless controls and triggers on power tools for example)
we will soon see guns with chips implanted on the sears that will only allow a person wearing an activation ring or braclet to fire the gun. I think it is stupid and open to abuse by the government but...
I am interested in what excuse the idiot gun grabbers will come up with then for us not leaving our guns loaded and within reach in our homes.
lazs
-
Masher do you have an anger problem?
Maybe you should chill a bit. :aok
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Masher do you have an anger problem?
Maybe you should chill a bit. :aok
Funny thing is, I haven't been upset at all. Sorry to take the wind out of your sails.
Karaya
-
So whatsall this "Chode, pin head", vitriol about!
If my presence here offends you tell me, then get over it. because I'm not leaving. Just yet anyway.
:D :D :D
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
So whatsall this "Chode, pin head", vitriol about!
If my presence here offends you tell me, then get over it. because I'm not leaving. Just yet anyway.
:D :D :D
you will always be a chode in here :D
Karaya
-
[/QUOTE]
no gun owner can sanely argue the point about safely securing firearms
I did sanely argue that point, you obviously chose to ignore it.
Back in 1988 I think it was......I was living in Lincoln NE in an older part of town. In the summer I slept with the window open since the apartment I was living in didnt have airconditioning. One night a guy tryed to climb through my window. He was met by the 6 inch barrel of a loaded Dan Wesson .44 magnum. I said two words to him.....'Get out!', he promptly left and never came back.
Bustr also posted a story about firearms that were under lock and key that were inaccessable during a crime, children died as a result. You chose to ignore that also since it doesnt fit YOUR views.
-
Nothing changes does it Masher?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I did sanely argue that point, you obviously chose to ignore it.
Back in 1988 I think it was......I was living in Lincoln NE in an older part of town. In the summer I slept with the window open since the apartment I was living in didnt have airconditioning. One night a guy tryed to climb through my window. He was met by the 6 inch barrel of a loaded Dan Wesson .44 magnum. I said two words to him.....'Get out!', he promptly left and never came back.
Bustr also posted a story about firearms that were under lock and key that were inaccessable during a crime, children died as a result. You chose to ignore that also since it doesnt fit YOUR views. [/B]
Show me an example of this in Australia, or New Zealand.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
and... since the idiots of the world are allways trying to make stuff idiot proof... (useless controls and triggers on power tools for example)
we will soon see guns with chips implanted on the sears that will only allow a person wearing an activation ring or braclet to fire the gun. I think it is stupid and open to abuse by the government but...
I am interested in what excuse the idiot gun grabbers will come up with then for us not leaving our guns loaded and within reach in our homes.
lazs
Lazs have you seen the metalstorm pistol? Its chipped. I thought that would be a good idea - i'd stop anybody from using your gun against you... don't you think?
As for the loaded gun question, well, I think that I'll leave that. Its pretty obvious the USA is a different place and a lot more dangerous and violent than say NZ or Australia, so you have to do what you have to do to defend yourselves I guess.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I did sanely argue that point, you obviously chose to ignore it.
Show me an example of this in Australia, or New Zealand.
It isnt possible to show you an example like mine from NZ or Australia since gunowners in those 2 countries must keep their firearms under lock and key. In a case like mine, Aussies and NZ'rs, even gunowners would be just another victim.....but you already knew that didnt ya?
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
I did sanely argue that point, you obviously chose to ignore it.
Show me an example of this in Australia, or New Zealand.
It appears there is NO interest here for discussion.
It appears WINNING this argument is paramount!
TOLD YA ..... IMHO NOT reading the in here post for anything but ammo????
:rofl
-
Vulcan I am still waiting to hear your answer to the questions I posed to you. I figure if you don't answer that is tacit admission you are merely a troller and unworthy of further consideration.
-
Lazs have you seen the metalstorm pistol? Its chipped. I thought that would be a good idea - i'd stop anybody from using your gun against you... don't you think?
The state of New Jersey passed a gun control law which states that as soon as the first gun that has technology like this has been on the market for 6 months in the United States, only pistols with this technology can be sold in that state.
This law has an exemption for the police because as we all know, chip based technology fails at the worst possible moments. The police in New Jersey specificaly refused to use the technology. So they were conceeded in this law super citizen status by fiat.
This kind of technology allows abuse by the state. It can be modified to allow your local police to have an enabling\disableing master control. The LOWJACK chip technology is easily incorporated into the owner recognition technology. At which point the police can be notified by your pistol that it is active and it's location. With the same technology the police can remotely disable your access to your pistol.
So extending this a bit farther, New Jersey is famous for passing laws that won't pass constitutional muster without its corrupt state government forcing it through against the will of its citizens. They would eventually tag on an addition to the current law something like, if your pistol does not phone(RFID/WIFI) home to the local police station from an expected storage location, at predetermined times, you have just become a criminal because your battery died.
Since no electronic technology is ever 100% and citizens in most countries have very littel oversight control on the local police. It has been my experience the police are not very motivated to oversight them selves for accidents such as the master control going on the fritz and disabling all pistols in a 10 square mile area. Or that that 50 pistols not phoneing home on time might constitute a systems failure at their end.
Only a fool hands over thier duty of personal accountability to the state or to technology for the fantasy of security. The state cannot stop evil people from acting evil or batteries from running out.
-
my opinion on the chip idea is this... I would not mind seeing it if it were reliable and, most important, there were a simple key device to disable it and make the gun manual again... the option to do either...
I am not against all single action revolvers having a transfer bar device to make em safe to carry with 6 rounds in the gun but.... I think anyone who is capable of picking up and loading a single action revolver should be capable of loading only five rounds and the hammer over an empty cylinder on traditional single actions without such a device.
more options are never bad. I object to a chip replacing teaching people to handle (or not handle at all) guns safely. Most of the guys wanting government lockups of guns on this board I would not trust to handl3e half my handguns.... might as well hand em to a toddler so far as knowledge goes. That is not to make fun of these people it is to point out that people who don't know about guns should either learn or.... simply not handle em..
Conversly... their oppinions on safe gun handling carry very little weight with me.
lazs
-
Laz,
New Jersey wants them on full time. The bait and switch is for protecting children when they ilegaly rummage in your home and keep a criminal from turning it on it's owner. So they will probably criminalise disabling the chip. How then will they be able to know who's chip is on or off? The technology is easily mated with LOWJACK.
All of the blue states are watching New Jersey closely on this one. Metalstorm's technology is being highly anticipated by them as a leading direction. You know as soon as NJ goes live with this our state kalifornia will follow with something rediculous. A law banning all handguns except for this technology and everyone will be given 30 days to turn over their single/double actions and semiautos or become instant criminals.
A law has been introduced in california that new handguns will have to be micro stamped with unique identification marks that will imprint on every shell casing when fired. I guess it will become ilegal to perform your own upgrades and repairs after that point.
I wonder if they will come up with some idiocy to trace the ball from a cap and ball single action? I'm thinking about ordering one from Cabelas to play with at the range. They look like a great way to spend an afternoon.
-
A law has been introduced in california that new handguns will have to be micro stamped with unique identification marks that will imprint on every shell casing when fired. I guess it will become ilegal to perform your own upgrades and repairs after that point.
What's the purpose of that? Current ballistics testing can link rounds fired to a specific gun already. Why would they need to link a spent shell casing to a specific gun?
-
Its performed with a micro lazer such that you are unaware of it with out a microscope and that it is resistant to normal wear which changes the wear and lans marks left on the round or shell. It's an attempt to get around the failure of ballistic fingerprinting. We all know a nail file can change that on a fire arm.
Wonder if this means california is trying to superceed Congress in regulating firearms. If you replace your barrel and slide the lazer etchings are gone. California would have to regulate the interstate traffic of replacement slides and barrels.
Originaly they wanted every round sold in california to have these micro engravings on the components along with you being registered in a state database for each ammo purchase. Plus a 10 cent tax per round. That did not fly with ammo manufacturers because of the cost. And Arnold had just became gov. He didn't want to raise taxes and piss of the good folks who elected him yet.
-
Originally posted by Zulu7
Nothing changes does it Masher?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
You take every joke serious?
Karaya
-
I've found that if I hold a firearm in the correct prescribed manner, it will almost allways be pointing away from me when it discharges unintentionally.
If you're going to jugle, I recommend that you start with unloaded firearms first untill you are more confident.
Allways remember to take your guns out of your pockets before you do laundry.
Never keep a loaded gun in your toolbox or the silverwear drawer, the blueing can get scratched.
If your gun rings, don't answer it !
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
As for the loaded gun question, well, I think that I'll leave that. Its pretty obvious the USA is a different place and a lot more dangerous and violent than say NZ or Australia, so you have to do what you have to do to defend yourselves I guess.
Here are some key findings about Australian crime trends for the period of 1995 (pre-ban) to 2001 (post-ban):
The rate of assault has increased steadily from 563 victims per 100,000 people in 1995 to 779 per 100,000 people in 2001.
In 2001 the rate for robbery peaked at 136 per 100,000 people—the highest recorded since 1995.
The rate of sexual assault was 86 per 100,000 people, which is higher than any previous year.
Here is the comparison in violent crime trends between Australia and the United States for the period of 1995 to 2001, calculating rates by dividing the number of crimes reported by the population figures. (Negative trends are in parentheses.)
Homicide: AUS – (11%) US – (32%)
Assault: AUS – 39% US – (24%)
Rape: AUS – 19% US – (14%)
Robbery: AUS – 70% US – (33%)
It is interesting to note that violent crime rates are higher in Australia. Following are selected comparisons for violent crime rates per 100,000 people in 2001. While homicide is lower and robbery is similar, assault and rape occur more than twice as often in Australia, proving that when the physically weaker are barred from possessing the best tool for self-defense, they are rendered helpless. As with England, women pay the price when politicians use tragedy as an excuse to eliminate armed threat to their power.
Homicide: AUS – 1.8 US – 5.6
Assault: AUS – 779 US – 319
Rape: AUS – 86 US – 32
Robbery: AUS – 136 US – 146
Mirroring England’s demonstration of John Lott’s principle of the substitution effect, we find that reverse substitution is also in effect in Australia: since victims are unarmed, criminals will not expend the extra effort to plan burglary.
The one exception to the substitution principle is that crimes against business has increased, as the ''rate of other theft (including shoplifting) has increased by 32% since 1995.'' This excludes motor vehicle theft, which ''has remained stable since 1995.'' Compare this with the 20% drop in property crime in the USA.
To summarize, we see a dramatic rise in violent crime in Australia since the gun ban, along with a relatively flat trend in property crime rates, demonstrating the criminals’ understanding of the basic principles of cost/benefit analysis, choosing the quicker method of confronting an unarmed victim. At the same time, the USA saw significant drops in both violent and property crime rates, proving the adage that an armed society is a polite--and safer--society.
http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=8073
Soooo....... Explain that Vulcan. USA is a far, FAR safter place than Aus, BECAUSE the citizens are armed.
(edit) another good link for info on violent crime rates in AU vs. the U.S.
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/guncontrol_20010302.html
(here's a highlight for ya')
WND reported that, although lawmakers responsible for passing the ban promised a safer country, the nation's crime statistics tell a different story:
Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.
Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.
In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.
In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.
There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.
-
Now you've done it Lute. Soon someone will be along to *disprove* your stats by using the *gun homicide* rhetoric heh.
-
Elfie,
Whats better is they will use death statistics for children in the U.S. 1 to 21 years old. And you know them 19 year olds just keep getting in the way of demon possed semi autos that jump out of closet shelfs and slaughter them for no apparent reason.
It's kinda like the rape statistic that 4 in 5 coed's will be raped each year on college campuses in the United States. Thats how the sexual harrasment codes got empowered on american campuses.
Numbers always figure, liers always figure the lie. There is usually 1 major college or university per state in the US. Average 20,000 students. Say half are female. So 4 in 5 out of 10,000 will be raped in the 50 states each year alone by these figures. The ultimate number of rapes per year on just these campuses if true would be greater than the FBI overall stats per year. Throw in every campus in each state with these numbers and they would rival the 2 million rapes of men by men in our prisons each year.
The anti gun lobbies do the same thing. Yearly in the U.S., children 1 to 12 deaths are less than 100 to fire arms, accidental or other wise. I think last year was 68?? Very few, less than 8 are children rummaging around in someones home and finding a gun. I think it was 2 or 4 last year. The numbers have always been that small for children in the United States. Anti gunners in the U.S. and abroad lie and expand the numbers to gain histerical emotional bye in. Chances are more adult american citizens die yearly because their guns were stored safely to protect the children.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Vulcan I am still waiting to hear your answer to the questions I posed to you. I figure if you don't answer that is tacit admission you are merely a troller and unworthy of further consideration.
I you want the answers to our democratic processes go look em up on the internet. Submissions are accepted from all.
Yes a cupboard, a locked cupboard at that. Thats right the gun nuts here are getting their nickers in a twist because 2.3% of gun owners in NSW, Aussie, probably couldn't even get as far as storing their weapons in a lockable cupboard.
-
Yeaaaaaaaaaaahup the USA crime rates are dropping....
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corr2.gif)
Must be a load of politcal prisoners in there.
The problem with those statistics is that the differences in the way crimes are reports AND how many are reported. I've no idea what the difference is but seeing the USA statistics show a drop in reported crimes versus a huge increase in incarceration I'd say the median reported crime has increased - end result is stats that look good on paper but show up bad in other areas.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/corrtyp.gif)
We could argue the reported stats all day long but bums in prison is your final figure ;)
-
Thanks vulcan, you just confirmed what I thought. No reason to waste any time on you, you can't come up with any answers, just snide comments. Sad waste of bandwidth for you to be here.
I gave you your chance to state your own position and you couldn't hack it. I suppose that would mean you would have to take a risk. Much safer just to belittle others instead. :rolleyes:
BTW no one has yet provided confirmation of what the cupboard has to be equiped with from either NZ or Australia.
-
Hey wow look different stats:
The FBI estimates that 72 of every 100,000 females in the United States wereraped last year. (Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996.)
and
One of the most startling aspects of sex crimes is how many go unreported. The most common reasons given by women for not reporting these crimes are the belief that it is a private or personal matter and the fear of reprisal from the assailant.
Approximately 28% of victims are raped by husbands or boyfriends, 35% by acquaintances, and 5% by other relatives. (Violence against Women, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dept. of Justice, 1994)
The FBI estimates that only 37% of all rapes are reported to the police. U.S. Justice Department statistics are even lower, with only 26% of all rapes or attempted rapes being reported to law enforcement officials
Now if I was really paranoid I could say crime victims in the US are too scared to report crimes from fear of retribution by gun wielding criminals. ;)
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Now if I was really paranoid I could say crime victims in the US are too scared to report crimes from fear of retribution by gun wielding criminals. ;)
Hey Kiwi, WHAT DOES YOUR LAST SENTENCE HAVE TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT OF IMPROPER GUN STORAGE?!!! When did Criminal activity become the topic? I tell you what, you're so hell bent on "being right", you lost initiative in the debate. Sit down child.
Karaya
PS - Maverick, he doesnt get it.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Yeaaaaaaaaaaahup the USA crime rates are dropping....
We could argue the reported stats all day long but bums in prison is your final figure ;)
Ok. Let's use the exact SAME website you got your info. Geeez talk about selective facts.
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/viort.gif)
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/hmrt.gif)
Lowest homicide rates since the 1960's
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/prop.gif)
(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/firearmnonfatalno.gif)
This is yet another "dodge" by you. Crime rates are down in the U.S. PERIOD. Can't argue that, it's a fact. Crime rates are UP in AU. Can't argue that. It's a fact. There is nothing that supports guns being limited in AU to a drop in crime. In fact, quite the opposite. You can NOT back up your position (because it's false of course) so you "Dodge" to prison population, which has no bearing what so ever on the topic at hand.
Not sure where you gained your ability for cognitive reasoning, but it's sorely lacking.
Here's a what if. What if some guy broke into my home, I had my firearm on a shelf in my bedroom closet, and they stole it. THEN as he was walking home he saw a bear attacking a toddler. He then uses the stolen gun to kill the bear, and saves the child. WOOOT. Thanks to my gun being stored on a closet shelf, another child has been saved from being mauled by a bear. Had said gun been stored in a safe, that poor child would be bear poop right now. Because of this, we should outlaw locking up firearms.
(snork) Sound stupid? Well.... look in the mirror bub. You've been spouting similar drivel for this whole thread.
And about your LAST post, the one about rapes. Well... looking at crime trends, (from 1995 to 2001) the U.S. has DROPPED 14% in rapes, but AU has gone UP 19%. Just wanted to point out that you are FAR more likely to get raped in AU than in the U.S.
Oh and Elfie, in re. to gun homicide rate, the 2nd link in my last post says it best.
Indeed, information on Handgun Control's Center to Prevent Handgun Violence website actually praises Australia and attempts to portray Australia as a much safer country following strict gun-control measures passed by lawmakers in 1996.
"The next time a credulous friend or acquaintance tells you that Australia actually suffered more crime when they got tougher on guns ... offer him a Foster's, and tell him the facts," the CPHV site says.
"In 1998, the rate at which firearms were used in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery went down. In that year, the last for which statistics are available, the number of murders involving a firearm declined to its lowest point in four years," says CPHV.
However, the International Crime Victims Survey notes that overall crime victimization Down Under rose from 27.8 percent of the population in 1988, to 28.6 percent in 1991 to over 30 percent in 1999.
Advocates of less gun control in the U.S. say the drop in gun murder rates was more than offset by the overall victimization increase. Also, they note that Australia leads the ICVS report in three of four categories -- burglary (3.9 percent of the population), violent crime (4.1 percent) and overall victimization (about 31 percent).
Oh yeah... AU sounds like a MUCH safer place to live in. IF you a criminal that is.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Thanks vulcan, you just confirmed what I thought. No reason to waste any time on you, you can't come up with any answers, just snide comments. Sad waste of bandwidth for you to be here.
I gave you your chance to state your own position and you couldn't hack it. I suppose that would mean you would have to take a risk. Much safer just to belittle others instead. :rolleyes:
BTW no one has yet provided confirmation of what the cupboard has to be equiped with from either NZ or Australia.
Maverick those regulations for securing fireams in the home that Vulcan posted apply to NZ. The Aussie regs may be similar, but I don't know.
The cupboard only has to have a lock on the door and be secure enough to prevent kids getting access to the guns inside and also be a deterance to thieves. This type of storage( including lockable gun racks) is legal for the vast majority of guns in NZ, which are un-registered, - shotguns and rifles. There is no limit on the number of un-registersd guns that an owner can posess but there is some restrictions on the guns themselves. Shotguns must be at least 30" in length. Self loading rifles can't have any of the following- mag capacity greater than 7 rounds, freestanding pistol grip, bayonet lug or a colapsable stock. Many assault rifles have been modded to comply because it avoids the hassle and costs of registration... but the result is often a smurfy gun.
Excel
-
The ICVS clearly demonstrates that Japanese bicycle owners need firearms.
Stop the madness!
-
Bustr I know all about how the gun control nuts manipulate the facts and tell outright lies. I really didnt know about the rape thing on college campuses though.
Lute, my comment about gun crime was directed at one individual who shall remain nameless unless he shows up in this thread. He has stated more than once he only cares about gun crime. Which is pretty rediculous really. Whats the difference if you get robbed by a knife wielding criminal or a gun wielding criminal? You have lost property either way.
-
sherf... I can't decide for people if they need a firearm or not but I do feel that it is best that they have the choice.
A locked up gun is pretty useless. I lock up most of my guns because they are valuable. One or two are near me and loaded. they are up high enough and in a conditon that would make them far less easy for a child to get ahold of and use than the knives in my butchers block on the counter byu the stove top.
Not teaching children gun safety in schools is the biggest mistake we are making in the whole firearms issue. The NRA has the best instructors in the world and would do it for free. They are banned from helping save your children by the anti gun nuts.
I see no reason for banning one type of gun or another.
I see no reason for safe storage laws but can see where they would cause harm. It can not be proven that they have saved one single child here in the states... point is... children dying from unsafe gun storage in the states is such a small number that it is laughable. Woory about em tipping over a lamp and being killed a lot more and your energies will be better spent.. Yep... pass a law that lets OSHA come to your house and check all furniture for tipping hazard... next... work on those 5 gallon buckets.. kds drown in em at an allarming rate despite the little cartoon of a toddler stuck in one with a line through it that nanny mandated on every bucket.
lastly... to hear people who know nothing of firearms tell us what it safe firearm handling and what is not is beyond laughable. Like my 3 year old granddaughter making up laws for safe sheep shearing in NZ.
actually... I think I have a different idea of what sheep are getting sheared in NZ than they do anyway.
lazs
-
Excel1,
Thanks for the info. I figured the one who originally posted the NZ info might be able to provide a link. What it comes down to is he in unable to stand up for his convictions or even state them. As I said, he is a troller and beneath notice.
I am still waiting for information regarding the "improper storage" that caused several thousand firearms (and other weapons whatever they were) to be confiscated and destroyed that was noted in the article. There is no criteria posted about that article yet.
The idea of voluntary turn ins is a bit questionable in my mind. How voluntary is it when a law is passed saying you will be prosecuted if you do not turn them in? Being threatened with imprisonment is hardly a voluntary incentive to my way of thinking.
-
Lazs
How would you prove that American parents who store their guns under lock and key have not saved the lives of at least some kids ?
300? million population= lots of kids+ lots of guns. By the law of averages safe gun storage must have saved the lives of some kids. But how do you show that as a statistic?- the kids are still alive, the guns are still secure. There's nothing to count. Maybe a figure can be estimated. It could surprise you.
Keeping guns under lock and key in the home is a fairly recent thing in NZ. The regulatinons were introduced in the 1990's, and it was mostly the police that wanted them. They just got fed up with dealing with criminals armed with guns stolen out of the homes of legal gun owners. The cops had a point. Anyone breaking into my home wouldnt have needed to bring a gun they could have just used one of mine when they got here.
In the US criminals probably have access to plenty of guns excluding the ones they steal in burglaries from homes, so the gun storage regs that we have probably wouldn't have any real benefit in the US as far as keeping guns out of the hands of criminals is concerned .But in NZ the criminals main source of guns is from burglaries of legal gun owners homes.So the regs have had a positive effect here- leaner pickings for the crims, happier cops, and less ammunition for the anti-gun brigade to use against us. The down-side for gun owners has been minimal- the cost off a safe or gunrack, or a lock for a cupboard door.
And I agree with you on the banning of guns based on their type. But it doesn't only happen here or in Australia. Have you tried to buy a .50 cal rifle latley ? It's a pretty big assault rifle aint it.
Excel
-
Maverick
Vulcan did provide a link to that NZ infomation he posted.
here it is:
http://www.police.govt.nz/service/firearms/
I can't add anything on the situation in Australia because I havn't been following the gun scene there. Canada has been of more interest to me because it was to be used as a template for universal registration here in NZ.
Excel
-
I think Vulcan is arguing this point from the perspective of one that lives outside of the US. Well,...I know he is. The only thing that I can say to you Vulcan is, I'm glad you are happy with where your country is. I don't want my country to be there. I don't agree with your logic, or lack of as the case may be. Crime rates are not the same as incarceration numbers. Do a little research in an objective state of mind if you can.
Other than that, I really like my NZ lambskin coat that I bought in December. Caught it on sale, $399 down to $99. Got a pair of gloves too, $39 down to $15. There was something in the news about PETA *****in about you guys playin with the sheeps sweethunks or something. Prices dropped like a rock:p
And screw PETA:D
-
excell... You most certainly can quantify the effect of safe storage laws. Those states and counties that adopted them should have a lower accident rate for guns and.... lower gun crime. Lott's latest book "The media bias against guns" charts these statistics and shows no effect or... a slight upward trend in gun crime and accidents with safe storage laws. "common sense" doesn't work here because it is flawed... It doesn't factor in things like guns made usless increase crime and.... gun accidents are very rare for children in any case. Gun accidents where kids get ahold of an improperly stored gun and kill themselsves or another are allmost unheard of. well... that is wrong... when it happens the whole friggin world hears about it like it was a common occurance.
as for restrictions... You can buy any type of firearm and keep it in Australian or NZ? So long as I can buy, own and shoot any type of firearm I'm ok with your laws... My Kimber .45 is on the counter loaded right now... that is ok tho too right? On my nightstand at night. OK? All my guns are loaded all the time. unless I unload em.
A .50 is not an assault rifle. Supposedly and AK 47 or AR semi autop or mini 14 is. Can you buy and shoot and have in your possesion those guns?
lazs
-
Lazerus
Your making too much of those crime stats Vulcan posted. He must have been pissed-off to post them because it was his earlier comments he posted that struck a nerve with some... enough for them to start throwing their toys out of the cot.
I'm glad to hear you got your woolies on the cheap. But as a beef farmer I got too tell you I'm immune to sheep jokes...it was a joke right ?
If it wasn't then that means those PETA fellas are telling horrible stories about hard working NZ sheep farmers.
And despite what these PETA fellas might say about the NZ beef thats exported to the US to be ground up into hamburger patties, I can assure you have no worries. Enjoy your burgers at the fastfood outlet of your choice in the knowledge that the bestiality problem in the industry is being worked on.
Excel
-
Lazs
I didn't know that safe gun storage laws were mandatory in some parts of the US. I thought it was voluntary across the country. To be able to quantify it makes a differance and since you have the infomation I accept what you say. But I still maintain that the gun storage regs in NZ have had a positive effect here... but would only create problems in the US if they were used there. Storing your ammo seperate from the guns would not make sense in a country which gives it's citizens the right to carry a concealed gun. In effect, you would be only able to leave the gun loaded in your home while you a carrying it. It would be stupid.
I can't say what guns you could buy and posses in Australia because I don't live there. But from memory Bluedog made a post or two about the situation in Aussie and I think it was handguns, pump action shotguns and selfloading rifles that were heavily restricted. In NZ you probably could buy and posses most any type of gun you would want but it would depend on how detemined you are and how much red tape you a willing to wade through to get some of them. Full auto weapons are the hardest to posses, and even when they let you keep them they are only as collectors pieces- they won't let you fire them!
Handguns and military style self loaders are about mid table in terms of bs level to posses. Out of the two, handguns are the easiest to posses. And once you have got one you can buy as many as you like, which is at least something.
Militay style selfloaders would include the AR15, AK47, L1A1 etc... but only semi autos.
All the above catagories of guns have to be registered so big brother knows you have got them.
Lastly comes the guns that dont need to be registered and relativly easy to posses,which is the majority of the armoury - sporting rifles, bolt action ex-military, semi autos like the Mini 14 and HK Sl8, all types of shotguns and military style semis that have had the evil bits removed.. bayonet lug, flash hider etc..
Your loaded Kimber .45 on the counter would be fine by me but if a cop walked in an seen it then you might have a problem. It would depend on the cop, but you would be lucky if you didn't lose it. The same applies to the nightstand, but unless you were a cop magnet or advertised the fact that you keeped a loaded gun/s in your home you probably wouldn't have any problems.
I kind of new the .50 cal is not an assault rifle.. but has anyone told Arnie.
Excel
-
excel... we all break laws.. there are too damn many laws but.. I will allways fight laws that make me a criminal. I do not want to be at the mercy of the largessse of a cop who has the option of taking away my gun.. we have enough of that here allready. I think that our laws are pretty restrictive... I think yours and other countries are insane and human rights violations.
If you say "you can own any gun you like but each one has a million dollar regestration fee" then you have effectively banned guns... if you say "you can have guns in your home but they have to be locked up with the ammo in a seperate locker" you have removed the right to self defense with firearms.
Here, in some areas... we have safe storage laws in that.... you must have a lock or safe for your guns. It must be in operation when children are present.. Where I live... you can't buy a gun without buying a lock unless you can prove you own an approved safe. You can't take the gun home from the store without the (usually free) lock. There is really no sense in any of this except to make more red tape and discourage more first time gun owners or cut down on sales.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Lazerus
I think Vulcan is arguing this point from the perspective of one that lives outside of the US. Well,...I know he is.
Sorry guys, more important stuff happened this weekend. But Lazerus, this thread is about something outside of the US. I would say you guys are arguing from a perspective of ones that live inside of the US ;)