40 Reasons for GUN CONTROL [Archive]

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:05 PM

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994, are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns and Ammo has some excellent articles on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for spinal paralysis, a computer programmer for Y2K problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later by an act of Congress in 1917.

13. The National Guard, funded by the federal government, occupying property leased to the federal government, using weapons owned by the federal government, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state militia".

14. These phrases,"right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumeration's herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people," all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

15. We don't need guns against an oppressive government, because the Constitution has internal safeguards, but we should ban and seize all guns, thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense, which is why police departments, federal enforcement agencies, the armed forces, and the US Coast guard have millions of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they serve no military purpose, and private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles," because they are military weapons.

18. The ready availability of guns today, with waiting periods, background checks, fingerprinting, government forms, et cetera, is responsible for recent school shootings, compared to the lack of school shootings in the 40's, 50's and 60's, which resulted from the availability of guns at hardware stores, surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, mail order, et cetera.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, and the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. A self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it uncompromisingly defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, as former president of the NRA, is a shill who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc., is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators that work in a building full of cops, DO need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc., says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands". Guess what? *You've got the wrong hands.*

pimf

03-01-2008, 05:11 PM

That's pretty good. Where's it from?

Papero

03-01-2008, 05:16 PM

6. The more helpless you are, the safer you are from criminals.

I love that one, reminded me of some of the British and their ridiculous views on weapons as a whole.

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:18 PM

That's pretty good. Where's it from?

Oh geez, you had to ask?? LOL I picked it up on some message board a while ago and saved it! The "Gun control" thread made me dig it up and post it... actually, it was Sketcher's quote page (see his signature) that reminded me... Awesome, isn't it?

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 05:24 PM

I love that one, reminded me of some of the British and their ridiculous views on weapons as a whole.

What that we don't have mass shootings of which this topic stems from.

ridiculous view :err:

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:28 PM

What that we don't have mass shootings of which this topic stems from.

ridiculous view

Huh?? :err:

Papero

03-01-2008, 05:30 PM

What that we don't have mass shootings of which this topic stems from.

The fact that your all of your gun crimes are increasing, some American gun crimes are decreasing and all the while preaching how well the gun ban works.

Dunblane massacre, anyone? Anyone?

This is going to be a pissing contest, so just admit your laws are wrong and we won't have to argue about the same thing as in the other gun control thread.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 05:32 PM

No, the fact that your all of your gun crimes are increasing, some American gun crimes are decreasing and all the while preaching how well the gun ban works.

Dunblane massacre, anyone? Anyone?

What happened after Dunblane please tell.

lol 666 post

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:34 PM

Oh, is that what he's trying to say?? Good! I'm glad he brought that up. Yes, I DO blame gun control for these mass killings! When a psycho wants to walk into a school or a mall or wherever... and just start gunning people down, he's perfectly confident that he will be unstoppable.

The most recent, and one of the worst shootings, took place in Illinois... a state with possibly the worst (best from your point of view), most prohibitive, most restrictive gun control laws in America. This shouldn't have happened, should it? All these laws were designed to prevent this from happening, but it DIDN'T. It prevented the honest, good, law abiding people from carrying guns which could've stopped or at the very least dramatically reduced the amount of deaths at that college.

Does that answer your question?

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 05:39 PM

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:41 PM

No gun ban can stop mass shootings in ANY country, I hate to break it to you. Just like heroin, guns find their way into your country every single day. And by the way, there IS a gun ban in Illinois. Please explain why it didn't stop the mass killing at the college?

I've got two words for you: Kennesaw, Georgia. It's a town. Look it up, and see if you can figure out what's so special about it.

You lost this argument before you even started it.

Boomer

03-01-2008, 05:46 PM

The problem is criminals will be able to get their hands on guns no matter how hard you control it. The black market is rarely effected by gun control laws.

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:52 PM

The problem is criminals will be able to get their hands on guns no matter how hard you control it. The black market is rarely effected by gun control laws.

Actually, I think it's safe to say that the black market is usually FUELED by gun control laws :)

Heroin is illegal in all 50 states. It's a Class A, Schedule 1 controlled substance. That means it has NO legal use in ANY industry. It's completely and totally outlawed. Yet tons of it find their way into America every day. Every single day. Anyone who thinks guns won't find their way onto the streets of America (or any country) after a total ban is a FOOL.

Hell, they're really not that hard to make. Anyone who took metal shop in school and has a basic understanding of physics and chemistry can make a zip gun using ingredients from the Home Depot.

What's gonna happen when homemade guns become popular? Are we going to ban metal shop and physics? Are we going to go back to hunting squirrels with sticks? What's gonna happen then, when some kid takes his squirrel stick and pokes another kid in the eye? Is Hillary Clinton gonna ban sticks too?

Where does the madness end?? Seriously?

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 05:53 PM

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:54 PM

Agreed. We are free to defend ourselves. You are not.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 05:56 PM

Agreed. We are free to defend ourselves. You are not.

From guns no...but then again is there a need?

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 05:59 PM

If you are prepared to make the statement that there are NO armed criminals on your island, and there is NO chance of you getting shot by a criminal ON your home soil, then I will say there is no need.

But you can't make that statement (and back it up) so until you can, I will say YES there IS a need, no matter how unlikely, it IS STILL POSSIBLE. There are some things you don't gamble with, no matter the odds, and your own LIFE should be one of those things.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 06:04 PM

_Joe

03-01-2008, 06:13 PM

Most armed criminals on this island only shoot other armed criminals.

And me not being a criminal...

If burglars know there aren't any guns in a house, they go for it. That's why the UK has higher burglary rates than the US. The rate in the UK is about twice what it is in the US. Oh, but what about Robbery rates? Slightly higher in the UK.

I'm not busting on the UK or anything, I'm just expressing my disapproval of your gun laws.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 06:23 PM

If burglars know there aren't any guns in a house, they go for it. That's why the UK has higher burglary rates than the US

In the US the case maybe if burglars know there aren't any guns in a house, "they go for it".

In the UK if burglars know that you have left doors,windows open,not alarmed,no cctv etc..."they go for it"

Oh, but what about Robbery rates? Slightly higher in the UK.

This may sound strange but, if I was going to be robbed I would rather be robbed with someone without a gun than with one.

texmaster

03-01-2008, 06:25 PM

Most armed criminals on this island only shoot other armed criminals.

And me not being a criminal...

Gun crime on your island has gone up not down since the ban

The United Kingdom banned guns just over a decade ago. They were certain *that* would eliminate gun crime.

Well, go figure. The gun crime that's been officially recorded is up by 4% over last year's reporting. And this is in a country where they don't need a border fence -- they have 26 miles of ocean. Golly. Illegal guns being smuggled onto the island so that they can be used in crimes.

Not to worry, though. The law-abiding citizens won't be shooting any criminals. The criminals are safe, at least, from them.

And why did I say "officially recorded"? Well, it's an open secret that some police departments have a policy of "discouraging" too many reports. If they can "cook the books", they'll look good to their constituents. Los Angeles comes to mind. An even better example is the wonderful country of Japan, where being murdered is often termed "heart failure".

http://www.e3gazette.com/2008/01/ban-guns-gun-crime-goes-up.html

And lets not forget the last 2 college massacres in the US and at the mall were all at "gun free zones"

ie easy targets

_Joe

03-01-2008, 06:28 PM

In the US the case maybe if burglars know there aren't any guns in a house, "they go for it".

In the UK if burglars know that you have left doors,windows open,not alarmed,no cctv etc..."they go for it"

If it were that simple, why wouldn't everyone just lock their doors and get alarms? Then there would be no burglary. But it is rampant over there.

And lets not forget the last 2 college massacres in the US and at the mall were all at "gun free zones"

ie easy targets
Now, while I agree that gun bans have a tendency to increase certain crime rates, having guns allowed on college campuses would only increase the risk of accidents and may even increase the risk of gun crimes on the campus. The risk of a shooting spree taking place is very low, while the risk of accidental shootings are of a relatively higher risk, and drunken fights may turn deadly with the introduction of firearms.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 06:31 PM

If it were that simple, why wouldn't everyone just lock their doors and get alarms? Then there would be no burglary. But it is rampant over there.

Yes but it would certainly lower it.Don't you think.

Gun crime on your island has gone up not down since the ban

The United Kingdom banned guns just over a decade ago. They were certain *that* would eliminate gun crime.

Well, go figure. The gun crime that's been officially recorded is up by 4% over last year's reporting. And this is in a country where they don't need a border fence -- they have 26 miles of ocean. Golly. Illegal guns being smuggled onto the island so that they can be used in crimes.

Not to worry, though. The law-abiding citizens won't be shooting any criminals. The criminals are safe, at least, from them.

And why did I say "officially recorded"? Well, it's an open secret that some police departments have a policy of "discouraging" too many reports. If they can "cook the books", they'll look good to their constituents. Los Angeles comes to mind. An even better example is the wonderful country of Japan, where being murdered is often termed "heart failure".

http://www.e3gazette.com/2008/01/ban-guns-gun-crime-goes-up.html

And lets not forget the last 2 college massacres in the US and at the mall were all at "gun free zones"

ie easy targets

Its stopped mass shootings that was my point.They are always people willing to get guns...no doubt,ie gangsta's

But them to go mass shootings?

Remember 7 years mandatory for being in possession of a firearm.

_Joe

03-01-2008, 06:34 PM

Yes but it would certainly lower it.Don't you think

I'm saying it's not that simple. If the average citizen were allowed to have guns the deterrent effect would have a substantial impact.

david_slupper

03-01-2008, 06:44 PM

I love that one, reminded me of some of the British and their ridiculous views on weapons as a whole.

Reminds me of this article:
Shopkeeper faces murder charge after turning knife on career criminal during carjacking
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=516702&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

That was great. Shows very clearly the inconsistencies in the "Gun control" crowd.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 06:46 PM

Reminds me of this article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=516702&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

That was great. Shows very clearly the inconsistencies in the "Gun control" crowd.

Thats funny that reminds me of this article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3445808.ece

If you believe anything in that rag of a newspaper...Then

david_slupper

03-01-2008, 06:52 PM

Thats funny that reminds of this article

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3445808.ece

You guys have had your balls cut off. Now you people are expected to surrender completely to the criminal and let him do whatever he wants with you.
Well guess what, keep that shit on your side of the ocean, we still like to be able to defend ourselves when needed and fortunately still have some cojones.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 06:54 PM

You guys have had your balls cut off. Now you people are expected to surrender completely to the criminal and let him do whatever he wants with you.
Well guess what, keep that shit on your side of the ocean, we still like to be able to defend ourselves when needed and fortunately still have some cojones.

Yea yea yea. :wave:

I'm saying it's not that simple. If the average citizen were allowed to have guns the deterrent effect would have a substantial impact.

Yea I get what you are saying but if everyone took the right security measures that would have a substantial impact too.

_Joe

03-01-2008, 06:57 PM

You guys have had your balls cut off. Now you people are expected to surrender completely to the criminal and let him do whatever he wants with you.
Well guess what, keep that shit on your side of the ocean, we still like to be able to defend ourselves when needed and fortunately still have some cojones.

What are you talking about? The guy acting in self defense was let go after police realized it was necessary to protect himself.

david_slupper

03-01-2008, 07:02 PM

What are you talking about? The guy acting in self defense was let go after police realized it was necessary to protect himself.

He faced murder chargers for defending himself; that's beyond ridiculous. If anything he should be given a medal for doing a service to the community. But no, since it's Britain, let's charge him with murder.

Good thing they let him go though. If they hadn't, I would totally lose faith in the British system of justice. Not like I have much faith though.

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 07:02 PM

Now, while I agree that gun bans have a tendency to increase certain crime rates, having guns allowed on college campuses would only increase the risk of accidents and may even increase the risk of gun crimes on the campus. The risk of a shooting spree taking place is very low, while the risk of accidental shootings are of a relatively higher risk, and drunken fights may turn deadly with the introduction of firearms.

Horseshit. Another piece of liberal, anti-gun propaganda. If someone has a license to carry, they know what the fuck they're doing, and there aren't going to be any accidents. When I carry a firearm, I don't drink. I walk away from fights. I swallow my pride. One who carries is one who agrees to a lifetime of deflection, de-escalation, and humbleness. When I want to drink, the gun comes off. When I want to carry, it's diet coke for me. Just like most motorcyclists, they won't drink when they go to a bar because the risk is too great.

I was in college when the columbine shootings happened, and the next week they reminded us all that our campus was a gun-free zone. Well, I carried any way, and only a few select friends knew about it. Some of them called me paranoid (chea, right) and others said "I'm taking all the same classes as you, save me a seat" because they could read the writing on the wall, like I did.

I've been carrying a gun (legally, thank you very much) for 12 years. I've owned guns for 16 years, and have been shooting since I was 10. That's 24 years experience and not a single damn accident. Why? Because if you're competent and responsible there will NEVER be a gun accident. Gun's don't just go off. They also don't fire from their own accord. They need HUMAN INTERACTION. Triggers must be squeezed, passive & active safety devices must be negotiated. They don't make guns (or holsters) so that if you sit down & cross your leg it fires off.

You're AFRAID my friend. You're AFRAID of decent, respectable, honest, law-abiding, educated, licensed, and trained citizens having the right to carry. Why not a college? They're adults! If a student has a license to carry, why can't he or she carry on campus??

How many more school shootings are there going to have to be before you realize that's the ONLY way to combat the problem?? Do you realize that college in Illinois also prohibited it's teachers AND CAMPUS POLICE from being armed??

You are NOT going to stop criminals from getting guns, how many fucking times do we have to tell you? Illinois made every law conceivable to stop gun crime AND - IT - HAS - NOT - WORKED. What don't you get about this?

Nobody wants to think about killing a fellow human being, but these psychopaths have removed that comfortable little thought. They have FORCED us to defend ourselves. What, you think if we hug them enough they won't shoot people? Are you out of your fucking mind?? When someone decides they are going to walk into a SCHOOL and OPEN FIRE they DO NOT CARE ANYMORE.

The ONLY thing that is going to stop them is a fucking BULLET. They do NOT care about laws, they do NOT care about life, they do NOT care about what's right and wrong, they only care about slaughtering as many innocent people as they can get to... If THAT is not a case where defensive return fire is justified, then pray tel, WHAT THE FUCK IS?!?!?!?!

rand0m

03-01-2008, 07:14 PM

NastyEvilDemon you've got a very valid point, however you neglected the one point that makes the world the world it is today.

People are stupid. It doesn't matter how many safety measures a gun has, at the end of the day some dipshit is going to start throwing it around and hurt someone.

Accidents happen mainly because people are stupid, people crash cars because they are stupid, people cut other people because they are stupid, people burn other people because they are stupid etc etc etc

Mr. Heskey

03-01-2008, 07:38 PM

I blame these mass killing on a LACK of guns. If gun laws were more lenient for law abiding citizens, a lot of this shit wouldn't happen.

_Joe

03-01-2008, 07:40 PM

He faced murder chargers for defending himself; that's beyond ridiculous. If anything he should be given a medal for doing a service to the community. But no, since it's Britain, let's charge him with murder.

Good thing they let him go though. If they hadn't, I would totally lose faith in the British system of justice. Not like I have much faith though.

He was never charged.

diarrhea

I wasn't saying that gun control legislation would make us safer, you completely misunderstood what I said. If guns were permitted on college campuses, how many accidental deaths do you think would occur? Do you realize how much drinking goes on at college? Let me give you a little for-instance:

One guy who's a member of the Alpha Alpha Alpha fraternity goes over to the Beta Beta Beta fraternity because he has a few friends who live there. One of the Betas, who doesn't know the Alpha at his house, is really wasted and, since he can't get any pussy, goes out to look for a fight. He runs into the Alpha, takes his cup, and dumps it on his head. The Alpha pushes the drunk guy, and the drunk guy starts fighting the Alpha. Three more of the drunk guy's friends jump in and help him, basically beating the shit out of the Alpha. After some of the other Betas break up the fight, the Alpha staggers back to his house, where he explains to everyone what happened a few minutes ago.

The Alphas had been boozing all night, and decide to roll up on the Beta house. These men are pissed off and not thinking rationally. Imagine if even just one of the had a gun.

Now, understand, I am not saying gun control legislation works. But school regulations prohibiting firearms on campus are not gun control legislation, they are rules put in place to ensure a healthy learning environment. There is a difference. And to suggest otherwise in the way you have is to make the anti-gun control movement look absolutely retarded. Way to go.

I blame these mass killing on a LACK of guns. If gun laws were more lenient for law abiding citizens, a lot of this shit wouldn't happen.

So few of these shooting sprees take place that more guns on campuses would cause more deaths than they would prevent.

Karajan

03-01-2008, 07:41 PM

Horseshit. Another piece of liberal, anti-gun propaganda. If someone has a license to carry, they know what the fuck they're doing, and there aren't going to be any accidents. When I carry a firearm, I don't drink. I walk away from fights. I swallow my pride. One who carries is one who agrees to a lifetime of deflection, de-escalation, and humbleness. When I want to drink, the gun comes off. When I want to carry, it's diet coke for me. Just like most motorcyclists, they won't drink when they go to a bar because the risk is too great.

I was in college when the columbine shootings happened, and the next week they reminded us all that our campus was a gun-free zone. Well, I carried any way, and only a few select friends knew about it. Some of them called me paranoid (chea, right) and others said "I'm taking all the same classes as you, save me a seat" because they could read the writing on the wall, like I did.

I've been carrying a gun (legally, thank you very much) for 12 years. I've owned guns for 16 years, and have been shooting since I was 10. That's 24 years experience and not a single damn accident. Why? Because if you're competent and responsible there will NEVER be a gun accident. Gun's don't just go off. They also don't fire from their own accord. They need HUMAN INTERACTION. Triggers must be squeezed, passive & active safety devices must be negotiated. They don't make guns (or holsters) so that if you sit down & cross your leg it fires off.

You're AFRAID my friend. You're AFRAID of decent, respectable, honest, law-abiding, educated, licensed, and trained citizens having the right to carry. Why not a college? They're adults! If a student has a license to carry, why can't he or she carry on campus??

How many more school shootings are there going to have to be before you realize that's the ONLY way to combat the problem?? Do you realize that college in Illinois also prohibited it's teachers AND CAMPUS POLICE from being armed??

You are NOT going to stop criminals from getting guns, how many fucking times do we have to tell you? Illinois made every law conceivable to stop gun crime AND - IT - HAS - NOT - WORKED. What don't you get about this?

Nobody wants to think about killing a fellow human being, but these psychopaths have removed that comfortable little thought. They have FORCED us to defend ourselves. What, you think if we hug them enough they won't shoot people? Are you out of your fucking mind?? When someone decides they are going to walk into a SCHOOL and OPEN FIRE they DO NOT CARE ANYMORE.

The ONLY thing that is going to stop them is a fucking BULLET. They do NOT care about laws, they do NOT care about life, they do NOT care about what's right and wrong, they only care about slaughtering as many innocent people as they can get to... If THAT is not a case where defensive return fire is justified, then pray tel, WHAT THE FUCK IS?!?!?!?!

While I agree with you overall, I still think having them on a college campus is a bad idea. Not everyone is as responsible as you are...I would go as far to say that very few people are that responsible. And to think that these tards won't be able to get a gun permit is just as naive as thinking that banning guns will stop gun crime. No offense intended.

Liberator13

03-01-2008, 07:43 PM

What that we don't have mass shootings of which this topic stems from.

ridiculous view :err:

British gun control was started to control the IRA, starting in the 1920's or so.

That worked out well.

kevinsmith

03-01-2008, 07:44 PM

Those are good points, but couldn't have have been posted in the gun control thread right below this one? lol

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 07:52 PM

British gun control was started to control the IRA, starting in the 1920's or so.

That worked out well.

Aye it did work out well....eventually.

But when every fucker was selling arms to the IRA they found it hard to control.

Liberator13

03-01-2008, 07:53 PM

Aye it did work out well....eventually.

But when every fucker was selling arms to IRA they found it hard to control.

It took almost 80 fucking years.

modogthemonkey

03-01-2008, 07:55 PM

It took almost 80 fucking years.

LOL we got there in end...better late than never.

painfulogic

03-01-2008, 08:19 PM

Horseshit. Another piece of liberal, anti-gun propaganda. If someone has a license to carry, they know what the fuck they're doing, and there aren't going to be any accidents.

Are you serious? Get a grip on reality man, accidents happen no matter how much experience you have.

When I carry a firearm, I don't drink. I walk away from fights. I swallow my pride. One who carries is one who agrees to a lifetime of deflection, de-escalation, and humbleness. When I want to drink, the gun comes off.

What the fuck does this have to do with anything? Not everyone is you, people are stupid, crazy, and angry. Think of all the cases of road rage, normal people with no criminal or psychiatric record but they go crazy.

Also, plenty of the weapons criminals get start out from a legal purchase.

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 08:33 PM

Really? Because the safety rules are designed to PREVENT accidents. PREVENT as in ELIMINATE. Not REDUCE not LESSEN... *ELIMINATE*.

Guns are machines, and as such, they can fail. If you follow the 10 commandments of firearm safety, you WILL NEVER HAVE AN ACCIDENT. PERIOD. Even if the gun malfunctions, one of the rules is thus: ALWAYS keep it pointed in a safe direction, so if it DOES go off, it won't hurt anyone, and the damage would be minimal. That means, when I go to rack the slide on my lovely Springfield Armory XD 45, which is probably the most reliable handgun in the world, I still keep it in the back of my mind: "This gun COULD slamfire on me... let me point it in a direction so that if it DOES go off, I won't mind a bullet travelling through..." and that's what I do.

No, my friend, there will NEVER be an unintentional injury caused by MY gun. And I'm flattered that you all say "Well not everyone is as responsible as you..." Again, I hate to break it to you: If someone is taking the time and effort to GET a license to carry, JOIN the NRA, TAKE shooting classes, BUY a gun safe... don't you think you owe it to them to give them the benefit of the doubt here?

More liberal PROPAGANDA... "People can't be trusted" that's what you're telling me. By your statements, you just said that people are STUPID and DANGEROUS and CANNOT be trusted with guns. We're sheep, that's all.

Right?

I don't think so..

@kevin:

Those are good points, but couldn't have have been posted in the gun control thread right below this one? lol

LOL!! Hell no! This is a huge issue for me, and for a lot of Americans. It's big enough to warrant 2 threads. Hell it's big enough to warrant it's own damn forum.

Hey Ebaum... make a gun rights forum for us!

Sketcher

03-01-2008, 08:50 PM

So few of these shooting sprees take place that more guns on campuses would cause more deaths than they would prevent.

How so? You have to first go through a safety class to get the permit to buy the gun, then you have to go through another safety class to be able to carry the gun outside of you're home. The people who would take the time to do that aren't exactly crazed, irresponsible maniacs who would pull a trigger at the drop of a hat. If a person wants to shoot someone on a college campus, they're going to do it no matter how many "no guns allowed" signs there are. Most campuses are so big, it would take the campus security ten or fifteen minutes to get to the scene. By the time the shooter pulls out their gun, to the time someone finally calls security, to the time security actually gets there, 30 people could already be dead. I'd rather see a student or teacher shoot the fucker dead as soon as they hear the hammer cock.

Solaris

03-01-2008, 09:33 PM

Good thing they let him go though. If they hadn't, I would totally lose faith in the British system of justice. Not like I have much faith though.

Pro-tip: We don't care.

All this USA vs UK bullshit pisses me off so much, it's never reasoned debate and ruins the environment in CE.

slapnpopbass

03-01-2008, 09:43 PM

I'm really glad NastyEvilDemon signed up. Excellent thread.

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 09:46 PM

I'm really glad NastyEvilDemon signed up. Excellent thread.

Thank you! :wave: Glad I could contribute, although I think you'll find a lot of people would disagree with you on being glad that I signed up... lol... as the saying goes, if they don't hate you, you're not doing your job!

texmaster

03-01-2008, 10:04 PM

Horseshit. Another piece of liberal, anti-gun propaganda. If someone has a license to carry, they know what the fuck they're doing, and there aren't going to be any accidents. When I carry a firearm, I don't drink. I walk away from fights. I swallow my pride. One who carries is one who agrees to a lifetime of deflection, de-escalation, and humbleness. When I want to drink, the gun comes off. When I want to carry, it's diet coke for me. Just like most motorcyclists, they won't drink when they go to a bar because the risk is too great.

I was in college when the columbine shootings happened, and the next week they reminded us all that our campus was a gun-free zone. Well, I carried any way, and only a few select friends knew about it. Some of them called me paranoid (chea, right) and others said "I'm taking all the same classes as you, save me a seat" because they could read the writing on the wall, like I did.

I've been carrying a gun (legally, thank you very much) for 12 years. I've owned guns for 16 years, and have been shooting since I was 10. That's 24 years experience and not a single damn accident. Why? Because if you're competent and responsible there will NEVER be a gun accident. Gun's don't just go off. They also don't fire from their own accord. They need HUMAN INTERACTION. Triggers must be squeezed, passive & active safety devices must be negotiated. They don't make guns (or holsters) so that if you sit down & cross your leg it fires off.

You're AFRAID my friend. You're AFRAID of decent, respectable, honest, law-abiding, educated, licensed, and trained citizens having the right to carry. Why not a college? They're adults! If a student has a license to carry, why can't he or she carry on campus??

How many more school shootings are there going to have to be before you realize that's the ONLY way to combat the problem?? Do you realize that college in Illinois also prohibited it's teachers AND CAMPUS POLICE from being armed??

You are NOT going to stop criminals from getting guns, how many fucking times do we have to tell you? Illinois made every law conceivable to stop gun crime AND - IT - HAS - NOT - WORKED. What don't you get about this?

Nobody wants to think about killing a fellow human being, but these psychopaths have removed that comfortable little thought. They have FORCED us to defend ourselves. What, you think if we hug them enough they won't shoot people? Are you out of your fucking mind?? When someone decides they are going to walk into a SCHOOL and OPEN FIRE they DO NOT CARE ANYMORE.

The ONLY thing that is going to stop them is a fucking BULLET. They do NOT care about laws, they do NOT care about life, they do NOT care about what's right and wrong, they only care about slaughtering as many innocent people as they can get to... If THAT is not a case where defensive return fire is justified, then pray tel, WHAT THE FUCK IS?!?!?!?!
http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a191/texmaster/applause.gif

_Joe

03-01-2008, 10:50 PM

How so? You have to first go through a safety class to get the permit to buy the gun, then you have to go through another safety class to be able to carry the gun outside of you're home. The people who would take the time to do that aren't exactly crazed, irresponsible maniacs who would pull a trigger at the drop of a hat. If a person wants to shoot someone on a college campus, they're going to do it no matter how many "no guns allowed" signs there are. Most campuses are so big, it would take the campus security ten or fifteen minutes to get to the scene. By the time the shooter pulls out their gun, to the time someone finally calls security, to the time security actually gets there, 30 people could already be dead. I'd rather see a student or teacher shoot the fucker dead as soon as they hear the hammer cock.

While all but one state requires a permit to carry a concealed firearm, few require a permit to own one. Any resident of the state or commonwealth could walk up, buy a gun, and take it back to the dorm to show it off to their friends with absolutely no safety training.

Pro-tip: We don't care.

All this USA vs UK bullshit pisses me off so much, it's never reasoned debate and ruins the environment in CE.

I agree. I always try to talk about this stuff without bashing the UK because it really is a great nation. Just because I disagree with their gun ban doesn't mean I think they suck or anything.

Really? Because the safety rules are designed to PREVENT accidents. PREVENT as in ELIMINATE. Not REDUCE not LESSEN... *ELIMINATE*.

Guns are machines, and as such, they can fail. If you follow the 10 commandments of firearm safety, you WILL NEVER HAVE AN ACCIDENT. PERIOD. Even if the gun malfunctions, one of the rules is thus: ALWAYS keep it pointed in a safe direction, so if it DOES go off, it won't hurt anyone, and the damage would be minimal. That means, when I go to rack the slide on my lovely Springfield Armory XD 45, which is probably the most reliable handgun in the world, I still keep it in the back of my mind: "This gun COULD slamfire on me... let me point it in a direction so that if it DOES go off, I won't mind a bullet travelling through..." and that's what I do.

No, my friend, there will NEVER be an unintentional injury caused by MY gun. And I'm flattered that you all say "Well not everyone is as responsible as you..." Again, I hate to break it to you: If someone is taking the time and effort to GET a license to carry, JOIN the NRA, TAKE shooting classes, BUY a gun safe... don't you think you owe it to them to give them the benefit of the doubt here?

More liberal PROPAGANDA... "People can't be trusted" that's what you're telling me. By your statements, you just said that people are STUPID and DANGEROUS and CANNOT be trusted with guns. We're sheep, that's all.

Right?

I don't think so..

I think we're talking about different things. You're talking about people that have concealed carry permits, while I'm addressing the fact that most states don't require safety or training permits to own a gun, therefore if we allow them on college campuses any random idiot could have one in a dorm.

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 10:56 PM

While all but one state requires a permit to carry a concealed firearm, few require a permit to own one. Any resident of the state or commonwealth could walk up, buy a gun, and take it back to the dorm to show it off to their friends with absolutely no safety training.

I agree. I always try to talk about this stuff without bashing the UK because it really is a great nation. Just because I disagree with their gun ban doesn't mean I think they suck or anything.

And if you completely and totally outlawed ALL guns in America, they could still do the exact same thing, except they wouldn't be buying it from a gun store, that checks ID and runs background NIC's, they'd be buying it from the gangbanger on the street corner. Either way, same ending... what's your point?

Oh and do me a favor... take a look at the violent crime rate of that "one state that doesn't require permits" (Vermont, for those of you who didn't know) and compare it to the crime rate of one of the most heavily gun controlled cities in the country: CHICAGO. Go on, look it up, let me know what you find ;)

I'll be here waiting when you come back.

I agree. I always try to talk about this stuff without bashing the UK because it really is a great nation. Just because I disagree with their gun ban doesn't mean I think they suck or anything.
If they're such a great nation that knows it all, and when they banned guns totally, even for the police, the promised NO gun crime. Not REDUCED gun crime, NO GUN CRIME. They even said "We're so confident this will work, we're not even going to arm our police..."

Tell me, if that worked so well, why is there still gun crime in England? And all of a sudden, more and more divisions of ARMED POLICE are cropping up all over the place... why is this? Why do cops need guns all of a sudden? What happened? "Great country" my redneck ass... The government of the UK has it's head so far up it's own ass they can smell what the queen had for breakfast. They were wrong, they fucked up, and they're too damn proud to (get ready for this) ADMIT THEY MADE A HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE.

_Joe

03-01-2008, 11:01 PM

And if you completely and totally outlawed ALL guns in America, they could still do the exact same thing, except they wouldn't be buying it from a gun store, that checks ID and runs background NIC's, they'd be buying it from the gangbanger on the street corner. Either way, same ending... what's your point?

Oh and do me a favor... take a look at the violent crime rate of that "one state that doesn't require permits" (Vermont, for those of you who didn't know) and compare it to the crime rate of one of the most heavily gun controlled cities in the country: CHICAGO. Go on, look it up, let me know what you find ;)

I'll be here waiting when you come back.

Actually you're right, Vermont is the only state that does not require a permit to either own or carry a concealed firearm. But, colleges and universities in Vermont still don't allow students to carry or possess guns on campus.

Perhaps these people in Vermont aren't all they're cracked up to be! THEY'RE PART OF THE LIBERAL PROPAGANDA MACHINE, JUST LIKE ME!!! (even though I'm in favor of less gun control...)

If they're such a great nation that knows it all, and when they banned guns totally, even for the police, the promised NO gun crime. Not REDUCED gun crime, NO GUN CRIME. They even said "We're so confident this will work, we're not even going to arm our police..."

Tell me, if that worked so well, why is there still gun crime in England? And all of a sudden, more and more divisions of ARMED POLICE are cropping up all over the place... why is this? Why do cops need guns all of a sudden? What happened? "Great country" my redneck ass... The government of the UK has it's head so far up it's own ass they can smell what the queen had for breakfast. They were wrong, they fucked up, and they're too damn proud to (get ready for this) ADMIT THEY MADE A HUGE FUCKING MISTAKE.

I didn't say their gun control policy worked, in fact all it did was disarm law-abiding citizens and turn more people into burglars. Why are you arguing with me? Because you want to be able to carry a gun to class?

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 11:03 PM

Quick_Draw21

03-01-2008, 11:05 PM

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, and Chicago cops need guns.

Isn't the whole point of banning guns, so taht law enforcment are the only ones who have them?

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

There is a huge fallacy in that logic. You are picking two random cities and claiming that there is a correlation between gun control and murder rates. Take a large swathe of cities with similar population sizes and socio-economic backgrounds then you may have a case.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

If you live your life thinking that every second your going to have to shoot a deranged lunatic then don't bother leaving your house.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

Because that always happens right? One in four Americans owns a gun yet cases where the owner of a gun actually uses it to defend themself are virtually unknown.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense — give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p. 125).

I guess you should try and resist if a criminal has a gun to your head. Go ahead and tell us how that works out for you :lol:

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

No most people wont be able to get their hands on guns then. Well thats the theory at least.

28. The right of online pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

Now you are comparing weapons to porn? Lol.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators that work in a building full of cops, DO need a gun.

Because as we know there aren't criminals coming in and out of police buildings at all hours right?

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

I hope thats a joke. Everyone I know uses a machine gun when they go hunting.

34. Police officers, who qualify with their duty weapons once or twice a year, have some special Jedi-like mastery over handguns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.
35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.
32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

Not everyone is a navy seal who is going to go dashing into danger to put an end to a crazed killer. In fact it could be argued that the vast majority of people will be running away whether they have a gun or not. Hell how many people will even try to stop a guy who is fighting in a bar with his fists? Let alone a maniac spraying his machine gun at everything that moves.

This isn't the wild west, vigilantism isn't the solution to crime. There are laws and police officers for a reason. Police are trained to deal with criminals, its their fucking job! How can you compare the average guy to a police officer?

Before you get your panties in a twist though, I'm not proposing gun control. However to think that more guns in your average citizens hands will reduce crime is just naive.

_Joe

03-01-2008, 11:11 PM

I happen to know exactly 11 people that live in Vermont (friends). Of those 11, 8 are in college. Of those 8, precisely EIGHT of them carry firearms to school. Their exact words: "Fuck that gun-free zone shit... if a lunatic strolls onto MY campus they're in for a big surprise."

And from what I hear, they're not alone ;) Get ready for that school shooting at a college in VT. When (if) it happens, there will likely be only one death: The psycho.

VT isn't as liberal as you think it is. Only on some things, and guns are not one of them.

Okay, so I was trying to make the point that despite the fact that people from Vermont love and cherish their weapons (as they should) their places of higher learning still understand that college campuses aren't the place for guns.

Also, listen, I am not for a national ban on guns like you say I am. I just don't think they should be in school. The observation that all of these school shooting occur in "Gun Free Zones" doesn't show that we should have more guns there, it's that law-abiding citizens aren't the ones killing people. It's people who break the law and steal guns or buy them from unlicensed dealers that use their guns for crime. Most gun control legislation would not stop this illegal influx of weapons, therefore it does not lower gun crime rates. Further regulation of dealers, however, could keep some guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Licensed dealers are the only ones who do background checks, unlicensed ones rarely do them, that's why criminals love them. To require all dealers to become licensed and perform background checks would greatly reduce the likely hood of the firearms getting into the hands of a criminal.

There, that's my position. What do you think?

Bergs

03-01-2008, 11:39 PM

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 11:39 PM

:::rubbing hands together:::: Oh, this is going to be fun... I've been waiting for one of you ALL DAMN DAY. (looking for the steak sauce) Here we go, sweetheart... You asked for it.

Isn't the whole point of banning guns, so taht law enforcment are the only ones who have them?
Yes! DING DING DING!! That is EXACTLY the point of banning them!! Because that WORKS, right? We make a law, and ALL the criminals obediently come and turn their illegal guns into the police, right? Tell me, were you born an ostrich, or were you just trained to keep your head in the sand?

There is a huge fallacy in that logic. You are picking two random cities and claiming that there is a correlation between gun control and murder rates. Take a large swathe of cities with similar population sizes and socio-economic backgrounds then you may have a case.
If you see absolutely no correlation between the two, then your case for gun control is already shot! (no pun intended) You gun grabbers use LA's crime rate to ban guns ANYWHERE!! The double standards are starting to stink like shit here... How can you not see that the city WITH gun control has a higher violent crime rate, and the city WITHOUT gun control has a LOWER violent crime rate... The issue is carrying guns for defensive purposes... the defensive purposes is to prevent MURDER. Obviously it's WORKING. There's the correlation. Go tell your friends Hillary & Bill.

If you live your life thinking that every second your going to have to shoot a deranged lunatic then don't bother leaving your house. And if you live your life thinking we shouldn't carry guns because we could go off the handle and start shooting, that would make you just as paranoid, wouldn't it? Please do us the favor of not leaving your house, especially on election day.

Because that always happens right? One in four Americans owns a gun yet cases where the owner of a gun actually uses it to defend themself are virtually unknown. HUNDREDS of people EVERY DAY use a gun to defend themselves. 99% of the time just brandishing the weapon is enough to thwart an attack. I've done it myself. People see the gun, they know what's coming, they retreat. Just because it's not in the news every single time it happens doesn't mean it DOESN'T HAPPEN. You need to learn your facts.

I guess you should try and resist if a criminal has a gun to your head. Go ahead and tell us how that works out for you :lol:
If you let a criminal get close enough to you to put a gun to your head, you're a fool to begin with. Yet anyone who knows anything about combat shooting knows damn well you DONT put a gun to someone's head. Guns are distance weapons. They're meant to be effective from far away. I'd be more worried if the guy were 30 feet away, covering himself behind a telephone pole...

No most people wont be able to get their hands on guns then. Well thats the theory at least.Again, do you think criminals worry about laws?? And for those that DO abide the law, what are you afraid of? If they follow & respect the law, what's the problem?

Now you are comparing weapons to porn? Lol.No, we're comparing the 1st amendment to the 2nd, which in context may be entirely different, but both are just as solid and applicable as the other, would you not agree? Or would you like to inform us that the 2nd amendment isn't as resolute or applicable as any other?

Because as we know there aren't criminals coming in and out of police buildings at all hours right?But why should a police chief then be afraid? Because there are just as many cops as there are criminals in said building at said time, are there not?

I hope thats a joke. Everyone I know uses a machine gun when they go hunting.A gun is a gun is a gun... Just because YOU don't like it or see a need for it, doesn't mean everyone does. It is protected by the US Constitution! Who are YOU (or anyone) to judge if that is right or not? Does the first amendment limit free speech to only that which politically correct, or does it not allow nazis to march in front of city halls? Just because you don't like it or see a need for it or agree with it doesn't negate it's constitutional protection, my friend.

No, it is NOT a joke. Why would you want to live in a country where ONLY the police had assault weapons?? Should the government ever become tyrannical again (well, moreso than it already is) how are we supposed to overthrow it if we're unarmed? That's our duty, is it not? It's spelled right out in the declaration of independence, or is that another useless, out of date document that only applied to muskets & greedy kings?

Yet I say the words "Overthrow the government should they become tyrannical" and you probably think of me as a dangerous, crazy, unstable person, right? For speaking the same words as our founding fathers did?

Again, I ask you, do you REALLY want ONLY the police to have the guns?

Not everyone is a navy seal who is going to go dashing into danger to put an end to a crazed killer. In fact it could be argued that the vast majority of people will be running away whether they have a gun or not. Hell how many people will even try to stop a guy who is fighting in a bar with his fists? Let alone a maniac spraying his machine gun at everything that moves.Put yourself in that shopping mall in (Utah, I believe it was?) a few months ago, where the kid walked in with an AK-47 and started killing people. Ask yourself this question, now that you are in that situation... how do you want to spend the next 120 seconds? Cowering, crying, crawling to a hiding place, while praying he doesn't spot you, whispering tearful goodbyes to loved ones that will never hear them?? Or would you rather hurl fiery fury right back at the son of a bitch? Answer honestly, then I shall entertain your statement.

This isn't the wild west, vigilantism isn't the solution to crime. There are laws and police officers for a reason. Police are trained to deal with criminals, its their fucking job! How can you compare the average guy to a police officer?Because we have no choice. Is there a police officer stationed at your side 24/7??? The USSC has ruled that (pay attention, you must've missed it the first time I wrote) THE - POLICE - ARE - NOT - RESPONSIBLE - FOR - YOUR - PROTECTION. Did you get it that time? Good. If the police WERE responsible for your protection, every time you fell victim to a crime, you and/or your family would be able to sue the hell out of the police for not doing their jobs. This ruling protects the police from that, because it is common knowledge that the police cannot be everywhere at once, and they never will be.

The average response time for a police officer in any given city, in any given state is approximately 11 minutes. Do you really want to wait for the police? And just because it's their job, that doesn't mean it's not yours.

If you see someone drowning, and the lifeguard is in the bathroom, are you going to stand their and watch them drown, even though you are perfectly capable of saving them yourself? LOL And when you go up before a judge on THAT pretty little passive murder charge, I'd like to see the look on his face when you say "Oh that's the lifeguard's job... so I let the guy drown." You tell me how that works out for you.

Before you get your panties in a twist though, I'm not proposing gun control. However to think that more guns in your average citizens hands will reduce crime is just naive.
Then explain Switzerland, Vermont, and the God graced city of Kennesaw, Georgia... which is the only town in the US that MANDATES BY LAW it's citizens OWN firearms. Clearly, what you think, wasn't thought out too well. And for someone who doesn't propose gun control, you sure do a hell of a good job impersonating one.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Okay, so I was trying to make the point that despite the fact that people from Vermont love and cherish their weapons (as they should) their places of higher learning still understand that college campuses aren't the place for guns.

Also, listen, I am not for a national ban on guns like you say I am. I just don't think they should be in school. The observation that all of these school shooting occur in "Gun Free Zones" doesn't show that we should have more guns there, it's that law-abiding citizens aren't the ones killing people. It's people who break the law and steal guns or buy them from unlicensed dealers that use their guns for crime. Most gun control legislation would not stop this illegal influx of weapons, therefore it does not lower gun crime rates. Further regulation of dealers, however, could keep some guns from getting into the hands of criminals. Licensed dealers are the only ones who do background checks, unlicensed ones rarely do them, that's why criminals love them. To require all dealers to become licensed and perform background checks would greatly reduce the likely hood of the firearms getting into the hands of a criminal.

There, that's my position. What do you think?
I think that no matter how good-intentioned your thoughts are (and they ARE very, very good intentions) you are still chipping away at a constitutional right. That is unacceptable. ALL rights MUST be carefully preserved, regardless the cost. If we can take part of a right away, we can take it all away. If we can take one full right away, we can take ALL rights away. Welcome back to Nazi, Germany. I'm sorry, but I'll go down fighting before I live to see that day.

I am a constitutionalist, I don't always agree with what's being defended, but my first, last, and middle priority is the preservation of ALL the amendments.

painfulogic

03-01-2008, 11:45 PM

More liberal PROPAGANDA... "People can't be trusted" that's what you're telling me. By your statements, you just said that people are STUPID and DANGEROUS and CANNOT be trusted with guns. We're sheep, that's all.

First of all you are completely delusional if you think that being careful and taking precautions eliminates 100% of accidents...it isn't possible.

Second, I don't have to convince you that people can't be trusted, it is a statistical fact, people are more likely to hurt themselves or others than stop a crime, by far.

david_slupper

03-01-2008, 11:58 PM

Second, I don't have to convince you that people can't be trusted, it is a statistical fact, people are more likely to hurt themselves or others than stop a crime, by far.

People hurt themselves driving cars. Should we ban cars?

Sure people are dumb sometimes, but I simply don't like the idea of everyone having to pay the consequences for the actions of a few dumbasses. And I like even less the idea of the government baby sitting its citizens and barring us from things simply because we can hurt ourselves. That's something your mom or a nanny would say to you.

NastyEvilDemon

03-01-2008, 11:58 PM

First of all you are completely delusional if you think that being careful and taking precautions eliminates 100% of accidents...it isn't possible.

Second, I don't have to convince you that people can't be trusted, it is a statistical fact, people are more likely to hurt themselves or others than stop a crime, by far.

It's not only possible, it's been happening for the last 16 years of my life! I've had firearms malfunction, but NOBODY got hurt because I observed safety practices! I've had misfires, hangfires, and even one (very entertaining) slamfire that basically turned my semi-auto handgun into a fully auto handgun :::grin::: and not a SINGLE person was hurt.

Now read my wording carefully: >>>> IF <<<< you follow >>> ALL <<<< of the safety rules when handling a firearm, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to accidentally SHOOT someone. Ignorance is NOT an accident, it's an on purpose. If you're not going to take the time to make sure your gun is pointed in a right direction, that is NOT an accident. That's NEGLIGENCE. Do not confuse the two. Is it possible for some freak accident to happen, and (let's just say) the backstop at a bonafide range lost integrity, and a bullet managed to penetrate it and go through and hit someone? Yes, of course... but the same could be said with ANYTHING. The odds have got to be 1 in a quadrillion of that happening... Are you really saying we should regulate, restrict, and/or outlaw something because of that?

And as for carrying a firearm, yes I CAN promise you 100% that you will not accidentally shoot someone if you keep the damn gun in your holster!! I'd like to know HOW it would work otherwise?

Now, about trusting people... You just called us peasants, pretty much. You know that, right? Tell me something, what about (I feel like I'm repeating myself here) all those untrustworthy stupid redneck hicks that live in Kennesaw, Georgia? You know, the town that requires it's residents to be armed, by statute? How come all those untrustworthy idiots haven't gone on a massive killing & crime spree yet? How come the entire country of Switzerland, which 100% of it's residents are ARMED WITH FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS... how come their crime rate is so low?? How come their gun crime statistics are SO low, they don't even have a category for it?? Why haven't these people all shot themselves yet? Care to explain?

david_slupper

03-02-2008, 12:02 AM

Now read my wording carefully: >>>> IF <<<< you follow >>> ALL <<<< of the safety rules when handling a firearm, it is IMPOSSIBLE for you to accidentally SHOOT someone. Ignorance is NOT an accident, it's an on purpose. If you're not going to take the time to make sure your gun is pointed in a right direction, that is NOT an accident. That's NEGLIGENCE. Do not confuse the two. Is it possible for some freak accident to happen, and (let's just say) the backstop at a bonafide range lost integrity, and a bullet managed to penetrate it and go through and hit someone? Yes, of course... but the same could be said with ANYTHING. The odds have got to be 1 in a quadrillion of that happening... Are you really saying we should regulate, restrict, and/or outlaw something because of that?

Exactly. Very well put.

ahaga

03-02-2008, 12:09 AM

Tell me something, what about (I feel like I'm repeating myself here) all those untrustworthy stupid redneck hicks that live in Kennesaw, Georgia? You know, the town that requires it's residents to be armed, by statute?

90% of Kennesaw, Georgia is white and middle-class. Only 3% is below the poverty line. there's no diversity racially or socio-economically. Kennesaw, Georgia really is a hick-town. it does not represent an average city in the USA.
you have a strong argument, but I'm just thinking that gun crimes have something to do with racial-tension, poverty, etc.

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 12:22 AM

90% of Kennesaw, Georgia is white and middle-class. Only 3% is below the poverty line. there's no diversity racially or socio-economically. Kennesaw, Georgia really is a hick-town. it does not represent an average city in the USA.
you have a strong argument, but I'm just thinking that gun crimes have something to do with racial-tension, poverty, etc.

Switzerland & Vermont are racially diverse... so that wouldn't really apply to them, but nobody said anything about race. He said "Most people are untrustworthy and stupid". He didn't say anything about living class, poverty, or race.

But now that you mention it, most gun crimes in the cities ARE gang related, and gangs ARE about 90% black & hispanic, so there you go...

painfulogic

03-02-2008, 12:43 AM

If your point relies on the fact that being careful eliminates 100% of accidents, consider the debate over. You can never be 100% no matter how careful you are. If you can't comprehend this than their really isn't anything else to say. To argue that your carefulness can eliminate accidents 100% (not 99.9999, 100) is seriously the most absurd and ridiculous argument I have ever heard, it really verges on delusional.

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 01:19 AM

That's not my point, that's your point. I may not be 100% anything (other than "asshole" :::grin:::) but I've gone 12 years carrying a gun and I haven't shot anyone or anything yet, accidentally or otherwise.

Actually, my point is that guns are perfectly safe when they're used properly. I don't know why the gun grabbers have these visions of holstered handguns "suddenly going off". That just doesn't happen... It hasn't happened yet, and it never will happen. That's like saying "My chainsaw just suddenly started itself" HOW?

Your concern is ACCIDENTS. My statement to your concern is DONT WORRY. You picture this 23 year old kid in a college classroom, carrying a concealed gun, when suddenly he reaches into a bag to get a pencil and BAM! the gun goes off. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. If it did, I would agree that guns are not safe.

A lot of people I know carry a semi-automatic weapon with a loaded magazine, and an empty chamber. You literally need to rack that slide back before it's even capable of firing. How is that a danger?? And the cartridges themselves are a complete joke... nothing more than a poor firecracker, without the pressure of a chamber & breech.

A lot of people think of cartridges as mini-hand grenades. They picture body heat setting the primer off, and a huge explosion, and shards of metal going everywhere.

Again, a myth. I've seen cartridges go off (outside of a firearm) It makes a little pop like a firecracker and bullet (projectile) falls to the ground, and case looks like it was ripped open by a pair of pliers. (Cartridges need PRESSURE) Smokeless powder is not explosive. It does not go "boom". It actually goes "Whoosh" and makes a pretty orange flame about yay high (pretend I'm holding my hand about a foot over my desk).

Guns are a LOT safer than you think they are. If everything else were manufactured with as much care, quality, and precision as modern firearms, cars would last 80 years. I have a hand-me-down S&W Model 19 .357 Magnum revolver that's older than I am... It looks like it just came off the assembly line. And you know something? That gun will probably outlive my grandkids.

Whether you want to admit it or not, law abiding citizens with high quality modern firearms & gear are probably the safest, most courteous, most responsible citizens on Earth. Period. If you want to pull statistics, tell me how many cases you can find where the police (in America) arrested someone for a gun crime, when they had a license to carry. Let's see how big that number is.

_Joe

03-02-2008, 01:31 AM

I think that no matter how good-intentioned your thoughts are (and they ARE very, very good intentions) you are still chipping away at a constitutional right. That is unacceptable. ALL rights MUST be carefully preserved, regardless the cost. If we can take part of a right away, we can take it all away. If we can take one full right away, we can take ALL rights away. Welcome back to Nazi, Germany. I'm sorry, but I'll go down fighting before I live to see that day.

I am a constitutionalist, I don't always agree with what's being defended, but my first, last, and middle priority is the preservation of ALL the amendments.

1. So, if people were to die during accidental discharge of firearms on college campuses because of your new rules about having guns on college campuses, would those deaths be worth it as long as we're allowed to carry a gun anywhere we want? Are you willing to accept those deaths?

2. Doesn't the college or university own the land their campus is on? And aren't they allowed to tell you what you can and can not bring onto campus or keep in your rooms? I mean shit, my school doesn't let you have candles. Is there a big uproar over that? No, because they're potentially a fire hazard. Is there a big uproar over them not allowing guns on campus? No, because it is their property and guns are far more dangerous than a candle.

Actually, my point is that guns are perfectly safe when they're used properly. I don't know why the gun grabbers have these visions of holstered handguns "suddenly going off". That just doesn't happen... It hasn't happened yet, and it never will happen. That's like saying "My chainsaw just suddenly started itself" HOW?

Your concern is ACCIDENTS. My statement to your concern is DONT WORRY. You picture this 23 year old kid in a college classroom, carrying a concealed gun, when suddenly he reaches into a bag to get a pencil and BAM! the gun goes off. THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. If it did, I would agree that guns are not safe.

A lot of people I know carry a semi-automatic weapon with a loaded magazine, and an empty chamber. You literally need to rack that slide back before it's even capable of firing. How is that a danger?? And the cartridges themselves are a complete joke... nothing more than a poor firecracker, without the pressure of a chamber & breech.

3. Again, you're talking about people with permits to carry such weapons. Citizens of states and commonwealths (such as I) who aren't required to have a permit to OWN a firearm don't get as much training and experience as you do. Are we to trust all of them with weapons on a college campus against the college's will?

Switzerland & Vermont are racially diverse... so that wouldn't really apply to them, but nobody said anything about race. He said "Most people are untrustworthy and stupid". He didn't say anything about living class, poverty, or race.

But now that you mention it, most gun crimes in the cities ARE gang related, and gangs ARE about 90% black & hispanic, so there you go...

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_tot_bla_pop_percap-total-black-population-per-capita

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_per_of_peo_who_are_whi_alo-people-percent-who-white-alone

4. Vermont is the least racially diverse state in the country....

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 01:35 AM

_Joe

03-02-2008, 01:45 AM

You're missing the point... there are already THOUSANDS of students carrying guns on campus, albeit against school policy. Their philosophy: Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. It's only a matter of time before one of these cases surfaces, where an armed student takes down an attacker before the attacker can slaughter people. It'll be interesting to see what happens then.

As for "accidental discharge" Why are you so fixated on guns accidentally going off?? Did you not read my previous post??? IT DOESNT HAPPEN, Dude!!!

Guns vs. Candles now? Are you serious?? How about we do Guns vs. Parking tickets next... We'll see which is the cause of more papercuts... Jesus H. Christ.

OK Let's entertain your idea... Let's keep guns illegal in colleges. So, how do you propose we deal with shool shootings? Maybe we should put up more signs? Those shooters in Illinois & WV Tech obviously missed the signs that were posted saying "No guns".

Hey, here's a better idea.. let's put an armed police officer in every classroom. That'll work wonders on the cost of tuition.

That's about all I got, dude... you got a better idea?

You are dodging the question I am trying to present to you:

WHAT ABOUT THE STATES AND COMMONWEALTHS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SAFETY TRAINING TO OWN A GUN? Or is it ok to infringe upon one's Second Amendment right because they haven't taken a gun safety course....:rolleyes:

Also, in 2002, 214 people under the age of 19 were killed unintentionally by firearms. Accidents do happen. Should we ban guns for that? No, but don't make everyone out to be as perfect as yourself. That's from the University of Michigan.

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/yourchild/guns.htm

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 01:48 AM

Correct. Integrity of the constitution is of the utmost importance. The states that are lenient on the purchases of firearms happen to be the states with the least amount of violent crime. Proper training is essential to operating and carrying a firearm. You shouldn't have to require a damn thing. Responsible gun owners WANT training and education, and more often than not seek it out themselves.

Believe it or not, we actually ENJOY firearm classes. I know my students do. They may be doing it to satisfy a requirement, but they love it just the same.

Now, speaking of dodging questions... What are we to do about the school shooting problem? I gave you my only ideas, and both are absurd... so what do you have?

Oh, and you don't seem to be against a responsible, law abiding, well-trained adult with a license to carry possessing a firearm... So why should that same adult (that you feel comfortable with in the local coffee shop) suddenly become an accident waiting to happen should he decide to attend college? What is it about crossing that magical threshold of the college property line that turns him into a danger?

Silverback

03-02-2008, 01:53 AM

I am PRO GUN. Not pro kill but I am PRO defend. I am not real sure if people are really getting the point here, there is no such think as accidents with firearms ONLY, ONLY "NEGLEGENCE". If your finger is inside the trigger guard and it discharges then there is no accidents. Pistols do not accidently go off in book bags or back packs either. To do so they would have to be out side of thier holster (NEGLEGENCE).

Anyone want to argue about the banning of full automatic weapons please do cause that is a whole different can of shit.
But please know this catagory before stepping on your dick.

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 01:54 AM

I don't think we should ban ANY guns AT ALL. There is absolutely no need for it.

The first part of your statement was well said. It's exactly the point I was trying to make. I too am pro-defend, but anti-killing. (I don't even hunt!) I'm a pacifist. I do not believe in nor like violence. I will always do my absolute utmost and VERY best to avoid confrontation, even if I look like a pussy for it. I don't care, I have no pride. I still sleep at night.

Threaten my life, or the life of another, and you just started playing a whole new game... one which you are destined to lose, because that's when the pacifism goes IN the holster, and the gun comes OUT.

_Joe

03-02-2008, 02:07 AM

Correct. Integrity of the constitution is of the utmost importance.I agree. That's why we shouldn't force colleges to allow weapons onto their campuses. They have property rights.

The states that are lenient on the purchases of firearms happen to be the states with the least amount of violent crime.That actually varies. I did a literature review on the subject last semester, it's about half and half, the states as a group are about average in total crime. More are committed with firearms, but that is to be expected, crime rates are similar in more stringent states.

Proper training is essential to operating and carrying a firearm.I agree.

You shouldn't have to require a damn thing.Yea, because everyone is as responsible as you. :rolleyes:

Now, speaking of dodging questions... What are we to do about the school shooting problem? I gave you my only ideas, and both are absurd... so what do you have?Look at why these kids went off the deep end, and why they chose to take others with them in such a public display, then work towards ways of preventing it in the future. These shootings are so few and far between (regardless of what the media tells you) that it's difficult to study the psychology of the perpetrator. The solution is a bit more complex than simply "give everyone a gun, it'll work out..."

Oh, and you don't seem to be against a responsible, law abiding, well-trained adult with a license to carry possessing a firearm... So why should that same adult (that you feel comfortable with in the local coffee shop) suddenly become an accident waiting to happen should he decide to attend college? What is it about crossing that magical threshold of the college property line that turns him into a danger?
He isn't much of a danger, unless he becomes intoxicated one night, or someone gets into his gun locker, or he becomes mentally unstable like these guys who go on killing sprees...

What I am worried about are people without any safety training who bring a gun into a dorm. I'm worried about the guy who doesn't like gun lockers. I'm worried about the guy on meds who got his gun from an unlicensed dealer. I'm worried about the guy who decides to take psychadelic drugs for the first time, has a bad trip, and starts shooting at all the monsters on the wall, sending shots through other people's rooms. I'm worried about that depressed roommate who knows his roommate has a gun, so suicide is that much easier. I'm worried about that heated argument that one guy thinks could be turned his way by bringing out the gun. I'm worried about the guy selling drugs on the floor who keeps a pistol under his bed just in case.

A learning environment would only be disrupted by the presence of firearms. The rate at which school shootings occur does not warrant allowing every student to walk around packing heat. Far more people would be hurt unnecessarily by accident or intentionally than by a man on a spree.

I am PRO GUN. Not pro kill but I am PRO defend. I am not real sure if people are really getting the point here, there is no such think as accidents with firearms ONLY, ONLY "NEGLEGENCE". If your finger is inside the trigger guard and it discharges then there is no accidents. Pistols do not accidently go off in book bags or back packs either. To do so they would have to be out side of thier holster (NEGLEGENCE).Well, people without safety training are generally negligent. And most states don't require safety training.

Anyone want to argue about the banning of full automatic weapons please do cause that is a whole different can of shit.
But please know this catagory before stepping on your dick.
I actually am against a ban on most assault weapons. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the citizens have access to the types of weapons in common use by the regular army in case they need to goto war, either against a foreign invading power or against a corrupt gov't. There should be more regulation than with handguns and hunting weapons, but I don't think they should ever be banned. Criminals don't use assault weapons anyway, they're far too cumbersome and conspicuous in most robbery situations. In battle, though, they're perfect.

I don't think we should ban ANY guns AT ALL. There is absolutely no need for it.

The first part of your statement was well said. It's exactly the point I was trying to make. I too am pro-defend, but anti-killing. (I don't even hunt!) I'm a pacifist. I do not believe in nor like violence. I will always do my absolute utmost and VERY best to avoid confrontation, even if I look like a pussy for it. I don't care, I have no pride. I still sleep at night.

Threaten my life, or the life of another, and you just started playing a whole new game... one which you are destined to lose, because that's when the pacifism goes IN the holster, and the gun comes OUT.

Yee-Haw.....

clutch-monkey

03-02-2008, 02:09 AM

in the US is it a requirement to do any form of safety training or firearm handling course before buying a firearm?
what about storage requirements?

Silverback

03-02-2008, 02:09 AM

Nasty I am not pro against Autos I just love to argue with those that have no knowlege about the owning of them.

_Joe

03-02-2008, 02:21 AM

in the US is it a requirement to do any form of safety training or firearm handling course before buying a firearm?
what about storage requirements?

Some states require you to have a permit to own a firearm, some don't. Some states require you to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, some don't let you (one state lets you without a permit [Vermont]). D.C. currently has what is equivalent to a ban on firearms within the District limits. That law is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court, they are supposed to have a decision before summer on that.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_fir-government-gun-laws-prohibited-firearms

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_per-government-gun-laws-prohibited-persons

Those are some interesting links on what is legal, who can buy, and how to buy it in every state.

clutch-monkey

03-02-2008, 02:24 AM

Some states require you to have a permit to own a firearm, some don't. Some states require you to have a permit to carry a concealed firearm, some don't let you (one state lets you without a permit [Vermont]). D.C. currently has what is equivalent to a ban on firearms within the District limits. That law is currently being challenged in the Supreme Court, they are supposed to have a decision before summer on that.

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_per-government-gun-laws-permits

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_fir-government-gun-laws-prohibited-firearms

http://www.statemaster.com/graph/gov_gun_law_pro_per-government-gun-laws-prohibited-persons

Those are some interesting links on what is legal, who can buy, and how to buy it in every state.

thanks. just seems a bit strange (stupid even) that some states will just let you buy a gun whenever with no prior experience or preliminary training. required.

_Joe

03-02-2008, 02:26 AM

thanks. just seems a bit strange (stupid even) that some states will just let you buy a gun whenever with no prior experience or preliminary training. required.

They figure a background check is enough, but that doesn't even occur in some cases. Most licensed gun dealers have information on training and safety courses, but rarely is it required unless you want a concealed carry permit.

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 03:03 AM

I give up... there's only so many times you can say the same thing over and over again before you realize you're just not being heard.

painfulogic

03-02-2008, 03:09 AM

I give up... there's only so many times you can say the same thing over and over again before you realize you're just not being heard.

It difficult to convince people their shouldn't be more gun control when so many people who get guns legally end up killing lots of people.

n00b_rocket

03-02-2008, 03:19 AM

It difficult to convince people their shouldn't be more gun control when so many people who get guns legally end up killing lots of people.

Not that many people do that.

clutch-monkey

03-02-2008, 03:22 AM

Not that many people do that.

i dunno man i just can't eat breakfast in the morning unless i'd already shot 3 people :rolleyes:

hipocritical

03-02-2008, 03:27 AM

I give up... there's only so many times you can say the same thing over and over again before you realize you're just not being heard.

The problem is that you don't need to ban guns, you need to tighten the standards on who can get them, so we have more competent people like you and less weirdo's buying guns.

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 03:33 AM

It difficult to convince people their shouldn't be more gun control when so many people who get guns legally end up killing lots of people.

That is a downright lie, but whatever.

Quick_Draw21

03-02-2008, 04:33 AM

Yes! DING DING DING!! That is EXACTLY the point of banning them!! Because that WORKS, right? We make a law, and ALL the criminals obediently come and turn their illegal guns into the police, right? Tell me, were you born an ostrich, or were you just trained to keep your head in the sand?

Where did I state that criminals would turn in guns? The whole point I had was that limiting the amount of guns gives the authority the upper hand. Not to mention that it will limit accidents, which are of course impossible.

If you see absolutely no correlation between the two, then your case for gun control is already shot! (no pun intended) You gun grabbers use LA's crime rate to ban guns ANYWHERE!! The double standards are starting to stink like shit here... How can you not see that the city WITH gun control has a higher violent crime rate, and the city WITHOUT gun control has a LOWER violent crime rate... The issue is carrying guns for defensive purposes... the defensive purposes is to prevent MURDER. Obviously it's WORKING. There's the correlation. Go tell your friends Hillary & Bill.

OK heres a comparison then, Denmark which has a stark anti-gun policy and Yemen where AK's and RPG's are sold by street vendors. Which one has the lower homicide rate, hmm? But but..thats not fair! Homicide rates can't possibly anything to do with everything aside from stringent gun control!

And if you live your life thinking we shouldn't carry guns because we could go off the handle and start shooting, that would make you just as paranoid, wouldn't it? Please do us the favor of not leaving your house, especially on election day.

I never once stated that I thought that. You on the other hand have shown a severe sense of paranoia in this thread and are now parroting what I said back to me.

HUNDREDS of people EVERY DAY use a gun to defend themselves. 99% of the time just brandishing the weapon is enough to thwart an attack. I've done it myself. People see the gun, they know what's coming, they retreat. Just because it's not in the news every single time it happens doesn't mean it DOESN'T HAPPEN. You need to learn your facts.

So you are claiming that brandishing a weapon on someone who wants to murder you is going to deter them? If someone one is a hardened criminal they are more likely to kill you if you attempt to brandish a gun then if you don't... As for other times a criminal may target you, the only time I can see a gun maybe having some effect would be in home burglary. Since most of those occur when people aren't home though...

If you let a criminal get close enough to you to put a gun to your head, you're a fool to begin with. Yet anyone who knows anything about combat shooting knows damn well you DONT put a gun to someone's head. Guns are distance weapons. They're meant to be effective from far away. I'd be more worried if the guy were 30 feet away, covering himself behind a telephone pole...

Yes because of course you are going to know who is a and who isn't a criminal before they come near you right? Also who the hell said anything about combat shooting???? This isn't a fucking paint ball game that we are talking about.

When someone wants to mug you they are going to make sure you don't see them coming ad that they have you at an angle where you can't see them thus can't id them. Also they aren't going to amke a move untill they are extremely close so that you have no chance of escape and no one witnesses the mugging.

Again, do you think criminals worry about laws?? And for those that DO abide the law, what are you afraid of? If they follow & respect the law, what's the problem?

You make it sound like all people are either constantly committing crimes or never break the law. The reality is that most people fall somewhere in between. Most random murders that occur (non-drug/gang related) are done by people who are angry over something but wouldn't usually do under normal circumstances.

No, we're comparing the 1st amendment to the 2nd, which in context may be entirely different, but both are just as solid and applicable as the other, would you not agree? Or would you like to inform us that the 2nd amendment isn't as resolute or applicable as any other?

Actually the first amendment isn't absolute. Like the common example of someone telling fire in a crowded theater not being under the first amendment.

A gun is a gun is a gun... Just because YOU don't like it or see a need for it, doesn't mean everyone does. It is protected by the US Constitution! Who are YOU (or anyone) to judge if that is right or not? Does the first amendment limit free speech to only that which politically correct, or does it not allow nazis to march in front of city halls? Just because you don't like it or see a need for it or agree with it doesn't negate it's constitutional protection, my friend.

No, it is NOT a joke. Why would you want to live in a country where ONLY the police had assault weapons?? Should the government ever become tyrannical again (well, moreso than it already is) how are we supposed to overthrow it if we're unarmed? That's our duty, is it not? It's spelled right out in the declaration of independence, or is that another useless, out of date document that only applied to muskets & greedy kings?

Yet I say the words "Overthrow the government should they become tyrannical" and you probably think of me as a dangerous, crazy, unstable person, right? For speaking the same words as our founding fathers did?

Again, I ask you, do you REALLY want ONLY the police to have the guns?

Should people be able to own rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets, battleships? What about grenades, bombs, nukes? Honestly if you think there should be no limit on the kinds of weapons someone can own then all those things I mentioned should be viable.

Put yourself in that shopping mall in (Utah, I believe it was?) a few months ago, where the kid walked in with an AK-47 and started killing people. Ask yourself this question, now that you are in that situation... how do you want to spend the next 120 seconds? Cowering, crying, crawling to a hiding place, while praying he doesn't spot you, whispering tearful goodbyes to loved ones that will never hear them?? Or would you rather hurl fiery fury right back at the son of a bitch? Answer honestly, then I shall entertain your statement.

YEEEHAA COWBOY!! The funny thing is that you are so fearful of some everyday mugger that you carry a weapons with you at all times even in areas where it is not allowed. Yet here you claim that you go in guns blazing and kill the guy firing a machine gun everywhere, eh?

What I would do would be to try and extract myself from that situation then call the cops to come deal with the problem.

If you see someone drowning, and the lifeguard is in the bathroom, are you going to stand their and watch them drown, even though you are perfectly capable of saving them yourself? LOL And when you go up before a judge on THAT pretty little passive murder charge, I'd like to see the look on his face when you say "Oh that's the lifeguard's job... so I let the guy drown." You tell me how that works out for you.

Except firing and killing someone is taking someones life not saving them. Do you honestly think a criminal who is intent on killing is going to wait for you to un-conceal your weapon and aim it at him before dropping you?

Dayve

03-02-2008, 04:44 AM

so just admit your laws are wrong

They're not our laws. They are laws made by the government of Britain and forced upon the citizens of Britain whether they agree with them/want them or not, just like in some American states where guns are banned but the majority of people don't agree with it. Because freedom means you're free to do what the governing elite tell you you're allowed to do.

:)

NastyEvilDemon

03-02-2008, 05:00 AM

Where did I state that criminals would turn in guns? The whole point I had was that limiting the amount of guns gives the authority the upper hand. Not to mention that it will limit accidents, which are of course impossible.
So you admit you want law abiding people to turn their guns in, because they're the real reason cops can't catch all the armed bad guys. Yeah. If I turned in my guns, cops would have an easier time eliminating crime. Do you read what you write?

OK heres a comparison then, Denmark which has a stark anti-gun policy and Yemen where AK's and RPG's are sold by street vendors. Which one has the lower homicide rate, hmm? But but..thats not fair! Homicide rates can't possibly anything to do with everything aside from stringent gun control!Nobody in Indianapolis is selling RPG's on the street, my friend. We're talking about small arms here. Stick to the topic. And Denmark has it's fair share of crime, including gun crimes.

I never once stated that I thought that. You on the other hand have shown a severe sense of paranoia in this thread and are now parroting what I said back to me. Am I paranoid for having insurance on my vehicle, for the unlikely event of an accident, theft, or fire? There is a huge area between not believing your ever going to be attacked, and being paranoid. I'm simply ready for anyone, any time. It's not paranoia, it's readiness.

So you are claiming that brandishing a weapon on someone who wants to murder you is going to deter them? If someone one is a hardened criminal they are more likely to kill you if you attempt to brandish a gun then if you don't... As for other times a criminal may target you, the only time I can see a gun maybe having some effect would be in home burglary. Since most of those occur when people aren't home though... That is exactly what I'm claiming. I had a couple of guys approach me in a not-so-nice section of providence and ask for my wallet. I drew on them, and they ran like children. Do you doubt me? And if someone really wants to murder me, I've got no problem accepting that they could kill me, but I AM going to die fighting. Maybe I'll get him, maybe he'll get me. At least I've got a better chance at life than you do.

Yes because of course you are going to know who is a and who isn't a criminal before they come near you right? Also who the hell said anything about combat shooting???? This isn't a fucking paint ball game that we are talking about. Yes, I treat everyone as a possible criminal, given the circumstance. It's a little easier to tell the difference between a dark figure sneaking up on you in an alley, versus a little old lady smiling at me in a coffee shop. It's a little thing we have called "Discretion". Oh, and by the way, the proper term used when referring to firing shots in a defensive manner is called COMBAT SHOOTING. Such a term does not exist in paintball, which uses different weapons, different tactics. See, paintball is a game. Combat shooting is killing people. Learn the difference.

When someone wants to mug you they are going to make sure you don't see them coming ad that they have you at an angle where you can't see them thus can't id them. Also they aren't going to amke a move untill they are extremely close so that you have no chance of escape and no one witnesses the mugging. That's something we like to call an assumption. 99% of muggings are done out of necessity, usually because of drugs. They go for the first person they think they can threaten and they are quite wreckless about it, too. Do your research before making radical statements. But for the sake of argument, if you think you can mug me without getting shot, you're welcome to try. I do this thing called "training" in which I try my best to prepare for every conceivable condition... Blind reloading, weak hand shooting, one-handed reloads... I take my DT very seriously.

You make it sound like all people are either constantly committing crimes or never break the law. The reality is that most people fall somewhere in between. Most random murders that occur (non-drug/gang related) are done by people who are angry over something but wouldn't usually do under normal circumstances. The reality is that ALL shooters with a license to carry do NOT fall "somewhere in between". The fact is, most of us have squeaky clean records, because you need one to get a LTC in the first place. Sorry, wrong again. Oh, and of most of those murders, very FEW are committed with firearms. Those passion murderers usually grab the first weapon they can find. If you take the time to go get a gun, that's premeditated.

Actually the first amendment isn't absolute. Like the common example of someone telling fire in a crowded theater not being under the first amendment. Actually, the first amendment IS absolute. Yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater is NOT exercising your right to free speech, and that's been proven by the SCOTUS. Just like using your gun to murder someone is NOT covered by the 2nd, again proven by the SCOTUS. there IS a difference between committing a crime and exercising a right. As long as you're not committing a crime, the amendments are absolute. Sorry, wrong again.

Should people be able to own rocket launchers, tanks, fighter jets, battleships? What about grenades, bombs, nukes? Honestly if you think there should be no limit on the kinds of weapons someone can own then all those things I mentioned should be viable. Stick to the topic... we're talking about FIREARMS. A rocket launcher and a battleship are not FIREARMS. The amendment states "Right of the people to keep and bear ARMS" Arms = Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns.

YEEEHAA COWBOY!! The funny thing is that you are so fearful of some everyday mugger that you carry a weapons with you at all times even in areas where it is not allowed. Yet here you claim that you go in guns blazing and kill the guy firing a machine gun everywhere, eh?

What I would do would be to try and extract myself from that situation then call the cops to come deal with the problem.That shooting took less than 2 minutes. The killer whacked 7 people, then killed himself before the first cruiser pulled into the parking lot. If that's really how you want to spend the last 120 seconds of your life, given the choice, then you deserve to die. You are not fit to live, because you REFUSE to protect your life. The gift of life is utterly wasted on you.

"Stand back, let the authorities do the job"

No. I refuse. And just because you choose to cower, does not mean I do, and it does not mean you have any right to take my rights away.

And for the record, if you WERE in that situation, you'd be singing a different tune. "Yee haw" is goddamn right, and should I ever find myself in that situation, I just might shout that out, in memory of YOU. If that makes me a bad person, then so be it. At least I'll be alive.

Except firing and killing someone is taking someones life not saving them. Do you honestly think a criminal who is intent on killing is going to wait for you to un-conceal your weapon and aim it at him before dropping you?You have no idea how fast I draw, where I draw from, or what I am doing while I draw. You have a LOT to learn about defensive shooting. Why do I get the feeling that you picture EVERY defensive shooting situation as taking place in the middle of a dusty street, at sundown, while we're both 50 feet away, staring at each other, and he's already got his gun out and pointed at me, and I'm just standing there like an idiot, waiting.??? Because the ridiculous things you're thinking up right now put that exact image in my mind. Do you think people don't MOVE when they're in a gunfight? Do you think they don't scramble for cover and threat assess 360 degrees while reloading? Do you think they don't make lateral movements while causing diversions and talking? Again, you have a LLLLOOOOOOTTTTTT to learn about this world, my friend.

Hey man, I don't want to see ANYONE die... seriously. But when someone decides they are going to murder someone, they take that choice away. Now we're GOING to see someone die... do we let the murderer chose, or do we chose?

I wish we lived in a world where we didn't need firearms, but we don't, and we never will. That is what YOU have trouble accepting. I don't. And for as long as we live in this world, firearms are needed to defend the good and innocent. That's been proven countless times through history, yet you don't believe it. I can't figure that out, I must be retarded.

I'd rather see the good, honest, law-abiding citizen live and the murder take 3 to chest. I dunno, maybe I'm just an asshole.