Printable View
I just ran across a completely stupid post concerning guns that made me realize that there's no gun control topic here. What do y'all think? What extent should there be on gun laws? What kinds of safeties should be required? What types of weapons (i.e. fully-automatics, etc.) should not be allowed?
No one should own mini-guns and heavy artilary. No assult rifles orlike that. Normal hand guns and rifles should be sufficet. If we need to over throw the government eventually...its not like this stuff would be super hard to come by in this country. When all those types of guns were banned the criminals still got them so it can't be that hard.
Felons and minors should not be allowed to own guns. Other than that, no gun control, whatsoever. Anything goes, assault rifles, grenades, rocket launchers, you name it. Using them, however, is a different story.
Every law abiding citizen should be allowed to carry anything they want. If I want to carry a bazooka, I should be allowed.
Guns don't kill people, people do.
ppl with problems or evil intent shoulld not have guns
i have no problem will people owning guns
Anything that keeps guns out of the hands of felons and criminals is fine by me. Banning guns doesn't accomplish that. Letting any John Q. Eyetwitch buy an assault rifle over-the-counter doesn't accomplish that.
The answer sits in the delightfully vague zone of "common-sense gun control". It aint perfect, but it's the best we can do.
Legal for everyone, or if not, the English could enter the USA AND INVADE IT!!!
tis an interesting question. countries like canada which allow people to own guns have low gun crime. but america with similar laws are busy shooting each other on a massive scale. that is to do with the failure of american society though.
but what would banning guns acheive. look at what britain did after dumblane. we banned all handguns. and? people handed them over. well only the law abiding folk. the gangsters and scum kept theirs. which makes no sense. the gun ban wouldn't have prevented dumblane anyway. as thomas hamilton held a handgun illegally anyway. it was an over-reaction.
here in britain now the police have called an "amnesty" on air, imitation and bb guns after some baby got shot and killed in glasgow (where else?) because some neds when they were busy shooting at the local fire service putting out a fire. it caused public out cry. and so whenever a kids gets hit by a air gun pellet instead of being worth a small note in the hidden part of a tabloid paper. now it is splashed on the front page. it's a totally reactionary coverage.
and it's not a real amnesty as all the above mentioned guns are not illegal. so you are free to keep them (like me) if you want. concerned parents basicly handed them over and that was it. it's a total failure. is your local ned going to think even if it was made illegal "i better hand it over so i don't get into trouble" is he heck. he'll keep at and the only people who it has influence on are the people who had no thought of shooting people anyway.
it would fail in america as well in the same. like it failed after dunblane here.
but what is the point of owning a gun? to defend yourself? but the guy robbing your house will probably have a gun as well. so it just become a first to shoot wins scenario. one person will die.#
so why so much gun crime anyway when other countries (look at the swiss for instance) have such a low rate. it's society really. and that isn't gonna be changed for a while. but there's no quick solution.
should guns be banned? yes. is it possible to do so? no. is it logical to do so? no. the way america works and it;s high levels of crime would just not permit it. it would leave the weak defenceless. but in theory a removal of all handguns would be a good thing.
what is not needed though is more than one. or a machine gun. or a sniper rifle. if it is purely to protect your home a handgun will suffice. close quarters combat that is what it was designed for. you do not need an m16. neither do you need a cache. you are not fighting a battle. a simple handgun or revolver will protect your home adequetly. a low gauge shotgun (like the one cobain used) is border line. but there is no need for anything else.
they can't even be used for a revolt. revolts ar now impossible after the first world war. why? tanks, planes and lots of other clever military stuff which noone has in their garage. if you were start a lovely revolt then you just end up with tianamen square.
Legal for every citizen above the age of, say, 21, with no criminal or mental record. Criminals will get their fire-arms one way or the other, mostly by duh, criminal methods. Lunatics... well, those aren't very common, and they'd get access to guns anyway, too.
So, we're left with normal people wanting to protect themselves. Nothing wrong with that - it can even decrease (and does) crimes such as rape, murder, burglary and robbery.
Also, please note - almost all (and I'm talking over 95 percent here, last I checked) of gun-related deaths in the US are accidents, were caused by mis-handling or the mis-placing of guns. Learn how to use 'em safely and how to conceal them so no-one without qualification or approval can get to 'em (like kids), and you've solved nearly all of the gun-related problems.
Here in America, our entire culture is based mainly on violence. Extreme violence in the media? A-ok perfectly American. Mother's breastfeeding their babies? AH NO SEX! HUMAN BODY! PROTECT THE CHILDREN! I don't have problem with most gun use, but the lift of the assault weapon ban was idiotic. No citizen needs their own personal Uzi. It's not like that this will stop criminals from gaining them, but it could cut down on the many accidents.
Agreed. Automatic weapons are much easier to mis-handle.Quote:
No citizen needs their own personal Uzi. It's not like that this will stop criminals from gaining them, but it could cut down on the many accidents.
they tried somethin like that, its called the revolutionary war, but their were only 13 colonies, The colonies still won.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shadow Nexus
He was being sarcastic, link. He was just making fun of people who try to justify gun ownership. (People like me, apparently. :p)
How would we fight off zombies without guns? Can you tell me that?
[/simpsonsreference]
I see no reason for regular citizens to own weapons. They should be used only by people who need them to perform their professions. The military, the police and hunters need them. Bakers, ornithologists and taxi drivers do not need them. They are designed to kill, so if you're not going to kill, then why do you need them? If you need them for protection, then your government isn't doing its job and you should probably move rather than buy one.
Taxi drivers drive in dangerous places, at night, and pick up strangers. They need measures of effectively protecting themselves.Quote:
taxi drivers do not need them.
So that no-one can endanger or kill you, instead. A gun does one thing - shoot. For the vast and absolute majority of the population, that means shooting as an absolutley last resort, and only in case of self-defence.Quote:
hey are designed to kill, so if you're not going to kill, then why do you need them?
There are evil people everywhere. The 'goverment' has little to do with this. Besides, most people aren't too keen on leaving their homes because of security problems... especially when there's no-where else to go. :rolleyes2Quote:
If you need them for protection, then your government isn't doing its job and you should probably move rather than buy one.
If there are less weapons in a society, less potentional killers will have a weapon in this society. And if someone breaks into your house with a gun, you are not less likely to be shot if you run up to the burgular with a weapon. No matter how illogical it may seem, handing out guns to everyone does not increase safety, nor does it decrease gun-related crime. I'm not saying your government is breeding dangerous people. I'm saying it's their job to protect you from them. If they fail to do so and you need fire-arms to protect yourself, your government has then, in my opinion, failed on this point.
I guess it depends on how finely you want to walk on the tightrope. Criminals will indeed get their hands on weapons pretty much regardless of what gun laws are placed. But just think - if EVERYONE'S going round with some type of projectile weapon in their possession, I can see, at least in the town I live in anyway, alot more mayhem than ever before. Enough people are killed during arguments in bars and misunderstandings in the street as it is, but if people are constantly subconsciously wanting to take their gun out at the first sign of trouble, I can only see hell breaking loose. It's a toughie really. I voted for guns to be legal to law-abiders, mostly because criminals have a pretty flowery existence where I am, so at least SOME sort of deterrent/protection is needed for the lay person.
What about people who only hunt as a hobby?Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
Rifles and handguns are fine for every "law abiding citizen" over 18.
I'm fine with people buying guns as long as there's a required background check. I don't see why civilians would need automatic weapons in most cases, though.
The automatic weapons ban was horrifically overexaggerated. It actually banned very little. Changing the stock, changing the ammo, and changing the barrel (I can't remember the specifics, it's been awhile since I read up on it and I'm no firearms expert anyway.) was about all that was required. It didn't actually prevent a good 90% of the guns people presume it did from being legally traded. (Moreover conditions on trading made it possible to trade previously owned guns perfectly legally, if I recall correctly.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiegrahf42
The reason for allowing law-abiding citizens to carry firearms is quite easily summed up in Gary Kleck's studies on firearms. A particular study indicates that as many as - and maybe even more than - 2.5 million Americans per year use firearms to prevent crimes in progress, and in the abundant majority without doing more than simply displaying the weapon.
In addition, the study indicates what whilst non-violent resistence results in injury for about 25% of assault cases, the figure drops to only slightly more than 12% for those who used guns to defend themselves.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kleck.study.html
http://www.guncite.com/gcwhoGK.html (Read especially Dr. Wolfgang's peer review.)
The first sentence is a flawed argument. Guns make it easier to kill people (Put aside that it makes it easier for people to defend themselves.), but if you're determined enough to kill, I daresay you aren't going to make much odds between a gun and a knife.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
If a burglar knows his victims may be in the possession of firearms they are willing to use, he will be dissuaded. This isn't speculation or supposition, this is the proven case. Moreover, if he's a burglar he won't care about the law anyway and thus may already have a gun. I'd rather have one of my own to at least even the field than have to try and take down an armed criminal with a can of soda or something.
Finally, you are misunderstanding some of the founding tenants of the USA. Self-reliance and self-defense are extremely important factors in many places and have been since frontier times. The two main reasons for owning a firearm are that 1) You recognize it is an impossibility for all but the most totalitarian of states to be able to actually prevent all crime, and 2) You understand that there may be situations where the government itself is incapable or unwilling to defend you, or even that it may be oppressing you (Which is why gun control arouses such heated debatel; it's seen as doing exactly that, and paving the way for more in the future.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by edczxcvbnmNo one should own mini-guns and heavy artilary. No assult rifles or
I am cross last vote and the third one but if i had to pick one the third one. Responsibly guns can save mroe lives, however just like anything handled badly, it can do harm too. So law abiding citizens that can afford them should be fine with me. Felons and other stuff..ehh if it wasnt falsely accused then i would think a big restriction for obvious reasons.
Hunting should exist only to provide necessities such as food and clothing. Hunting for these things is ok IMO, but hunting for fun is something I strongly disagree with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Raistlin
It is way easier to kill someone with a gun than with a knife. You don't stab someone by mistake because you are nervous, but it's very easy to just pull the trigger in a stressed situation. It is not easier to defend yourself with a gun in your posession. It might help you protect your property, but it only endangers your life further.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Well, to make criminals aware that you're willing to use your firearms, you need to have shot someone before.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Rights are something you are granted, not something you have by nature. I just don't understand why it's important for so many to have the right to own tools of killing.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
I dont see how it would endanger your knife everytime you cut meat more -_-; I have had some guns since i was a kid, taught well on not to touch them..and it was fine.
To make crimminals aware you are going to use your firearm, just point it at them :P I dont need to make them aware even...i dont take chances, all i did was go to a shooting range to get the hang of things, then practice. Never would i even think of going violent with the gun, its only for defense.
Why is it important to make an army that is only there to cause death? To defend your own country. Every weapon can either be used to hurt another, or to prevent yourself from being hurt from the people that want to hurt another. It depends on how you use it. Should people be not violent i dont see any reason for a gun or weapon at all. But theres the simple fact that some people are violent and dangerous and if they invade your home and endanger your loved ones, you need to disable the person from doing any permanent damage. (i aim to just take him down...not to kill him if i dont have to)
Thats my view on firearms. If it was a perfect world, i would have voted never for ANYONE to use one...but it isnt so i advocate at least one that is easily accessible when you are sleeping should bad things happen. So far i never had to use any...and i hope it stays that way.
...and I suppose the same thing could be said about eletric chairs and gas chambers?Quote:
Originally Posted by karatehero
I hate guns with a passion, but I support ownership of them. I will never own one of them though, and I think most people want them for idiotic and illogical reasons, and they fail to use common sense to realize it.
But hey, idiot gun owners shooting each other dead is something I'm glad to see happen.
I like these nifty signs that say something like "This house is protected by Smith & Wesson", or "Tresspassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again", it carries the message pretty well. Criminals learn to know the neighborhoods where the risk is higher, and they avoid them.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
Not in the US philosophy. Rights are something you have by nature, and people agreed to give some of them up (gov't powers, laws) for the greater good.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
According to US philosophy, rights are something you have by nature, and people agreed to not infringe upon the rights of others(i.e., not kill each other), and to watch over them and make sure they don't is the government and objective law. Basically, I have the right of life and liberty, but I can't infringe upon the life or liberty of anyone else. I am free to act in any way I wish, but I must be responsible for the consequences of my own actions(good or bad).Quote:
Rights are something you have by nature, and people agreed to give some of them up (gov't powers, laws) for the greater good.
There is no such thing as a "greater good" outside of the individual. The government and laws are there to protect individual rights, no to infringe on some of them for the "greater good."
Actually, a fair proportion of private firearms owners are well-trained, to a degree equalling or even surpassing the level of proficiency which the police require from cops. I do understand your general point. Which is why one educates oneself about the use of firearms, as I plan to do. When I move to the US I'm going to own a gun, maybe several, and I'm not planning to do it just by walking into a store and picking the biggest hand cannon I can find. No, I'm going to talk to other firearms owners, I'm going to make sure I know the safety rules, I'm going to ensure I follow all the laws, both national and local, and I'm not going to brandish a firearm unless there is clear and present danger. I also plan to go to a shooting range to ensure I am accurate with the weapon. I guarantee a hell of a lot of firearms owners have due respect for the weapons they handle.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
And apparently you didn't read what I said about the Kleck Study. Firearms make you safer - firearms are the safest method of defending yourself against an aggressor, often by a good five to ten percent over the next nearest method. Guns make you safer, and that's the end of the discussion.
No, they need to know there's probably a gun in the house. Criminals aren't generally totally stupid, and they know that if someone is armed, and there's an unknown assailant in the house, the person will probably be a bit nervous and not really willing to ask questions. The presence - even the potential presence of firearms - is a very great deterrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
Also, doesn't this sit at odds with the statement "You don't stab someone by mistake because you are nervous, but it's very easy to just pull the trigger in a stressed situation."?
As has been pointed out, the founding philosophy of the United States is that rights are, in fact, inherent and inaliable. The very idea that rights are granted - and can thus be removed as desired - is one of the best reasons on the planet for owning firearms, second only to defense of oneself and one's family, friends, property, and so forth.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
are guns the way to protect your property? is killing someone for theft a good thing? in iran you only get your hand chopped of. that's far better than being shot. i could live without a hand. i would miss half my brain. if they need to be used they should be used in the same way they are used for the police in the UK. only if your life (or meber of the public in thr police case) is obviously at risk. not for nicking your tv.
but again american soceity and it's huge failiure for the reason in the huge gun crime levels. look at sitzerland and canada. they manage quite fine. but america screws it up. and what is unique about amierca is it's society. that is why people are killed on the streets everyday. but that does not forgive the shooting of anyone unless you are in a "him or me" situation. there is no need to shoot some poor junkie 17 year old trying to get his next fix with your DVD player. and that is maybe why american spcoety fails..... it's materialism and greed. the idea to shoot someone for theft. to end a life over a few hundred dollars. it does not matter if you are trained in firearms useage or not if you lack any kind of morals.
compare losing your hand to beind shot on your shoulder and still being able to keep your shoulder and the hand when you stack it up against someone not having a hand.Also that few hundred might be that person's life,Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Now i do support gun contorl mainly because of some of the crazy stuff. Like this guy in a car at a traffic light stopped is waiting for it to turn green.When a bum walks up and puts a bullet in his head.
IT happens.
such is why a large number of people believe that the mentally unstable should not be allowed to own guns. At the moment, I'm among them.
Who's them? The mentally unstable or the people who think they shouldn't be allowed to own guns?Quote:
Originally Posted by The Man
You can be mentally sound nad put a bullet through someone's head jsut because he made you mad by looking at you at a certain way.
Arguably, both. ;) However, I meant I was among the people who think the mentally unstable shouldn't be allowed to own guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
Of course. And those people are prosecuted for crimes, as they should be.Quote:
Originally Posted by lordblazer
and do you have to prove mental stability when you purchase a gun? you got a crazy test? same thing with "known felons" what about those that haven't been caught, those that have not yet committed a crime but will.
lordblazer did you just defend the shooting off someone for the sake of a TV? a life = tv?
also should incapicitated people be shot? whether defending your life or not. once you have once and incapacitated someone is it correct to shoot again? is it right to shoot in pursuit when chasing someone (shooting in the back)?
that actually happened in atlanta a few days ago.Its a crazy world we live and no I wasn't joking.
i'm confused what possible reason can you give to shoot smeone. possibly killing them for stealing a tv or other such stealable thing?
Well, if someone tried to rape my girlfriend while I was present and I had a gun at my disposal, I'd shoot the would-be rapist without a second's hesitation. Protecting people (including oneself) is the only valid reason I can think of for shooting someone, though. Property's not that important.
Well i feel a little like a traitor on this issue, because i agree with most republicans. Though i dont know why someone wants an assault rifle, i mean i guess i could see myself using an ak to hunt a deer on single shot not full-auto. And i dont think that the statistics of criminal activity ought to prevent them from owning them. Our Constitution in the US gives freedoms, doesnt take them away(from anyone but the government really.).
I wouldn't, I daresay, shoot someone who was trying to steal something of mine. But here's the thing - I don't know why someone has broken into my house at 3am. I do know that I may well have a ladyfriend and, in the future, children to protect. I wouldn't go in all guns blazing, I'd give him a chance to get off my property. But I'd shoot before taking chances.
The thing people who make such an analogy don't consider is that there is a big difference between self-defense (Which is what such a case would be), and justice, which is what such a case would be if he did steal the TV and later was caught. I'll take the rap for killing someone before I allow my family to be in danger.
how's this for a solution then? one single available firearm. single use (lets say 6 shots) possibly electronically tag it and have it either send a message to some cental point or have it's usage stored in some other way.
tasers already do this kinda thing when shot (they have little ribbony bits that shoot out). this would creater a recording of every fire arm incident and since the guns wopuld be registered under names would increase arrest rates.
also what's wrong with tasers as an alternative to firearms?
Ever seen a guy on PCP with 2 tazer prongs, police standard strength tazer prongs, pull them straight out of his chest and come running at u?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Neither have i, but the officer that partolled the school i recently graduated from said he did.
there ar eothe rreasons why people get shot here.Like for a person to get into a certain gang they must pass a final test which is they have to shoot and kill someone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
This man at a conveint store got shot and killed ebcause the ugy said he was quote "Disrespecting."
yeah the guy did nothing to him yet he was killed. it happens .Gun contorl won't work.They need to raise the prices of the bullets. 10 grand per bullet.That way if someone gets shot he had to have done something to get shot.
There are actually multiple difficulties with tasers.
First as CloudSquallandZidane said, a taser won't always stop someone. However, the guy doesn't even have to be on drugs. When we went to our local jail for a school trip the officer there said anyone who signed a consent form could be tasered if they wished. He only let two of us do it.. so I didn't get a chance.
It connected the the shoulders rather then the cneter of the chest.. so it wasn't at it's strongest or anything. But really how likely are you to hit some one dead in the chest with a taser? Basically my freind kyle got it in the arm... no affect what so ever.. he didn't even twitch. We have other guys around here that can lift farmers electric fences up without major complications. They pick up the fence and let everyone else through.. the they crawl under or climb over. And while they are the minority.. there are still enough out there that our current tasers aren't a very good option.
However this isn't the only problem. Tasers only can shoot 15-20 or so feet.. and that may be military brand.. the brand on the market for citizens may be less. That is enough for most situations, but won't always help.. after all I believe even many of the weaker guns can easily out distant that.
What if you have two guys threatening you? With a normal firearm you at least have some what of a chance of disabling them.. but with a taser you don't.. they can only target one person. Even many rifles I have seen can shoot twice in a row... but not a taser.
Tasers are very limited, so are tranqs, and so are just about all the alternatives. There is a reason why Guns are considered the best defense. They can get the job done, though you need some training. Particually in hitting moving targets where you want to.
And for shoting someone stealing from me.. yeah I would .. but I would aim for the leg.
you see that is what i don't understand about american society. maim someone (blow a hole out of the guys leg bone and you will) for the sake of money? a few hundred dollars? to what purpose? venagence? greed?
vigilante violence (especially of a fleeing man) is not in the least part moral.
so is there any flaw in a single use weapon (6 rounds max)?
but the real prblem here is america's society. it is a catastrophic failure. and that is the only reason why so many people are shot for whatever reason.
So you're suggesting that if I were to take a few hundred bucks from you (let's assume that I have a weapon), you'd let me go because "it's just money"?
Where's the line between something worth fighting for or not? When someone goes after your relatives? Your car? Your tv?
is money worth a life? worth maiming someone for?
maybe this is why american soceity is so flawed. it values money above all else. leading to greed. and so leading to crime and ultimately death.
Here's the thing.
It's not actually about money or property. It's about dignity.
If you mean that the law abiding citizen gets only six bullets, well here's why that won't work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
BLACK MARKETS.
The guy coming into your house will have far more than 6 bullets, and he has the advantage that he knows for a fact that you have only 6. So he really only needs to wait until you shoot at him 6 times and then he can kill you without worry about your gun.
Now I am not sure how likely a gun shot to the leg would permantly cripple someone.. but I am fairly certian it isn't the most likely thing. A freind of mine who has served in the millitary has suffered a bullet wound in his leg.. He walks and runs fine. I know a few other people who have been shot else where and are fine. In fact fatality rate of guns is fairly low is it not? As in the likelyhood of dieng or being maimed is quite low compared to how many are shot. So thus shooting someone who was breaking the law will likely leave them with a full recovery.. and at the same time you will hopefully aid in the lowering of crime.
Lets say anyone who steals doesn't have to worry about resistance.. I can tell you right now the crime rate would go up. Compared to how many crimes are commited how many people do we catch? How tough are our jails and prisons? None of this will deter or stop crimes. If however, you may get hurt stealing.. you may think twice. This here may actually work since many of the types of stealing we are talking about are premeditated.
Now why I feel this way.
1)letting them get away with it does not teach them it is wrong.
2)Gun wounds from what I know are generally unfatal and unmaiming.. though they may hurt for a while.
3)With the programs available stealing is not a neccesity.
4)It isn't right. I am not going to sit by and let wrongs be commited. Heck If I ended up maiming the fella.. I would be willing to pay/help pay for a prosthetic limb for him. But the point is you can't do something wrong and expect no retaliation.
I think the fatality rate depends on the bullet used. Round tip bullets are cheaper and penetrate the body leaving little damage. However expensive hollow point ones stay inside your body and expand heavily. You can shoot a jelliton or something like that it will show how deadly the shot is and most people who use round tips(cuz they are cheap) wont kill anyone whereas someone with a hollow point probably will if shot at teh body.
Thanks Lionx. I am afraid that in actual practice I am mostly clueless about guns. I only know what I have read about them.. and that is not as much as I should probably know. As it is now I would like to get some training in weapons so that I could actually have one... Not going to trust myself with something I don't know how to use.
Disallowing guns is about as effective as giving kids "sex education" where you just teach abstinence.
Obviously option 3 is the best. But even law abiding citizens can turn into a nutter if they have a gun at hand.
I remember an incident that happened here in England where a burgular broke into a farmer's house, & the farmer had a shotgun [I think it was a shotgun] & shot the burgular, but then instead of the violent burgular being arrested & sentenced, the farmer got a sentence for shooting him! I think that's appalling.
Jup. Tony Martin was defending his property from a couple of thuggish vandals and ended up in prison for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TisWas
The castration of once-Great Britain continues.
That's funny, considering that Europe is dying in an orgy of self-sacrifice.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Yeah, but that wouldn't happen if the laws were more clearly defined. In that case, the gun was used as it legally should be used - in self defense. In that instance, the farmer should not have been sentenced.Quote:
Originally Posted by TisWas
Then again, maybe this is why European society is so flawed. It values the collective above all else. Leading to lack of human (individual) dignity. And so leading to "political crimes" and ultimately death.
tony martin sat and hit under a table waiting for these guys and then coldly shot them in the back. it was not an act of self defence. it was vengence vigilantism and murder. his life was not in danger. he is a murderer plain and simple.
bullet wounds are actually rather fatal. a few million soliders and two world wars will tell you that they do have a habit of killing people. shooting in the leg risks severing major artery in the calf. blood loss sustained from an artery of that size will result in death with 15 minutes.
what a bullet does when it enters the body. the bullet is hot from air resistance and burns the skin and pierces it. if it hits bone it smashes through the bone forcing bone fragments around the area. bits of the bullet are liable to come off at this point and the bullet will mushroom. the bullet will force through the bone carrying with it debris that wll leave a huge exit wound. the tissue within the wound is burnt as the bullet was hot. fragments of bone and bullet can get into the bloodstream possibly moving towards the heart which will result in death.
hollow bullets (dum sum rounds) are meant to fragment massively when they enter the body and are illegal. pointed bullets are very accurate and have a very high speed. flat head bullets are slow and inaccurate but because they are flat cause a great of amount of trauma. round heads are a mixture of the two.
When were hollow points illegal? I dont remember them being illegal around my state but i expect republicans to come over and say they will be eventually...
So whats your point? That the farmer has go to up and say "HEY I AM OVER HERE!!!" in order to defend his property? I would stand there and shoot the guy behind his back and be SAFE rather and yelling my presence to protect my property. Thats ridiculous. It wasnt cold-blooded IMO, just smart.
<33Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
You = win.
Cloud No.9 - Don't kid yourself. What was he meant to do?
"Oi lads, 'scuse me, I'd rather you weren't stealin' me te*lly if that's alright with you?"
* Most sensible people would realize that he'd probably only get this far before being attacked himself.
I don't mean to give you the impression I'm singling you out - it's just that you tend to be the most vocal (and therefore, the best person to debate with). So, please keep that in mind. I'm not a bastard, honest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
However, I disagree. I don't know the case in question. Somehow, I doubt that two men were entering their home to warn them that their sprinklers were on. These men had one thing in mind: force.
The purpose of any government is to protect individual rights, which is - to stop the use of force an another individual. People are fundamentally free - as the government itself is just a collection of individuals itself. Criminals may use force on another in many senses. Fraud, for example, is a use of force. For all of those who are enviornmentalist-minded, then randomly dumping your waste in the oceans is a use of force (not on "the enviornment", but on others) and therefore should be illegal. However, they should not make production illegal - which would solve the problem, but at what end? No production? This is the same with the gun control argument. Take away the individual's rights to own a handgun and properly protect their family, and certainly there would be less shootings. But at what cost? People will be ruled by criminals.
An individual is not allowed to issue retaliatory force in all cases; that would be anarchy. For example, if someone were to steal my wallet, well, I wouldn't be allowed to shoot them on sight and claim that they were using force on me. They were, and likewise should be dealt with. However, that's the government's job. Now, you might argue, "but that's exactly what happened!" But there is a key difference. This was done on his property and with his life at stake.
In the expediency of the moment the government might not be able to respond quickly enough. In that case, the man can and should be allowed to use his gun to protect his investments - his wife and children, his money, his car, etc. However, this is only legal in the sense that the criminal's purpose was to destroy the victim. If a man came into my room in order to steal my computer (and carried a weapon in order to disarm me or even kill me in case I resisted) I would have no moral issue with hiding behind my bed and killing him "in cold blood". That would not be a use of force on a criminal's base level; that's protecting my ultimate value: my life.
Do not explain what a gun does to argue the case. Yes, I'm fully aware that guns can kill people. But to be anti-weaponry is to be anti-technology, which is anti-progress, which is anti-mind. Which I guess, in a sense, is the anti-life. Weapons are tools, and can be used to protect.
If people want to argue whether a person should be allowed to carry a bazooka, I'm all for debate; this is a question where we have to consider. To say I am not allowed to have a small handgun on my bedside in case of criminals on the obvious basis that it "kills people and hurts them", that's ridiculous and to sanction evil - to allow criminals to exist, and to reward them.
I don't know the case so I can't really try to act as a mediator here :(.
As for gun fatality what I had read was.
1 in 3 gun suicides are fatal. Which is to be expected when the victim does not attempt any form of preservation then the rate will be higher.
1 in 7 or so(sources differed) of homicided committed with guns are fatal.
1 in 13 gun wounds where the shooter was not aiming to kill were fatal. that is the group I would be in(a 7.6% rate of death, knife wounds I hear are about 4%). The places I found seem to aggree but the above are not government statistics.
Also gun misfirings I believe was about 1 in 16(20? didn't pay any attention to this since I will make sure my gun isn't misfired).
I guess I could always use a sword/knife/bow to defend myself but the knife fatality was near guns, and the fatality of swords I have read is higher then knives.. maybe as high as guns.. bow(crossbow is what I was thinking of) are prolly pretty close to guns as well. However, with the above the chance of freinds/family/myself becoming injured are greater... well maybe not with the crossbow.. I don't know much about their protection abitilities.
Also according to an old FBI report I read a while ago the stoping power of a gun is actually quite low.. However the stoping power vs. the risk you take is much better for a gun then for any other weapon.. or so I have read and heard.
Any gun reasonably useful for self defense should be allowed to be bought... Bazookas and such I prolly wouldn't aggree with.. at close quarters(likely since we are talking robery) you would likely blow yourself up.. so kinda impratcial. but meh I also don't know much about bazookas.
as far as i was aware dum dum rounds had been banned at the same time flamethrowers were (some time after the seocnd world war). or maybe it was landmines?
gun suicide rate of death is lower than it should be because alot of the time the gun is placed against the temple.
tony martin wasn't protecting his home. the theives were leaving. at that point he choose to shoot them in vengence. he heimself was in no danger at the time. neither was anyone else. shooting someone for the sake of the love of money is a horrible thought.
Not if it was his money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Right, if someone took all your Credit cards, you Wallet IDs, most of your furniture, god knows whatever necessary legal documents, that you worked hard and sweat for, you wouldnt be going after the person that took them. -_-
i reckon anyone with a licence should be able to buy a gun.
no Licence no gun
what people are argueing over here is money over life.
i don't think there is anyway i could ever say that my money is more important than a man's life to such an extent i would kill purely for it.
it's a sad state of society when people view money as worth more than a human being.
Well I wouldn't purposefully kill someone for money, but I would try and stop them from comiting a crime. Also I would damn well shoot someone before they took my wallet. that has all my stuff in it(social security card, drivers licence, if I ever get a credit card there it would be, photos of freinds and family, posibly some who are deceased(I would fight for these alone.. I attach a lot of sentimental value to what pictures I do keep), etc. Idenity theft anyone?
True it wouldn't last long since I would do what I could to instantly nullify it.. but thanks to our red taped buerocracy it could take a day or two or more to nullify/replace everything... Alot can be done in that time.
My identity and whatever I have sentimental value on, I will do whatever it takes to secure.
Also most of us aren't shooting to kill.. but to stop them. and if my statistic is right you are only taking about a 3% chance more of killing them then if you use a knife. And neither have a large chance of killing to begin with.
Yeah =/ Why would we go out for murder? Our sole intent and purpose is protecting us and our things that shouldnt be stolen in either case. If you total up the guns this country has...(except military) most of us would rather defend ourselves with them than go out robbing...because otherwise our crime rate will be much higher.
Again, it's not just about money, it's about dignity. It's about saying "I'm not going to be walked all over by a common thug. I will stand and defend myself, my home, my loved ones, and my property."Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Of course no one values money as worth more than life. That criminal was stealing from that man. He was stealing from that man's labor. He was stealing from that man's life. Property is the product of one's life; to let it go away to Hell is to claim that life is worth nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
If a man stole all of my posessions and attempted to walk away from my house... I mean, you understand what I am arguing, right? It's not "money vs. life" it's "force vs. life", which is, "stealing money, the product of your life".
And it's a sad state of society when need grants you a claim on someone else's life - which violates the idea of freedom. A poor person is free to ask/beg for money, but not to steal: claiming a right to another's life by force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Well, as a gun owner myself (I own 3 rifles, 2 pistols and 1 shotgun), I can give some good reasons for owning guns, aside from just personal protection.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMKA
First of all, there's the grand sport of hunting. I buy a hunting license every year, and during the fall and winter I hunt squirrels, rabbits, pheasants, and deer. When I was stationed in San Diego during my Navy enlistment, I bought a Utah hunting license and hunted Gambell's Quail and Chukhars with my uncle. Of course, I don't always manage to bring any game back, but that's why they call it hunting.... you gotta hunt for it. I'm not a trophy hunter, either. I eat everything I kill, and in the case of the rabbits and squirrels, I try to save the tails for my dad, who uses the hairs for tying dry flies.
Second is the numerous target competitions, trap shoots, black powder rendezvous, and cowboy action shooting. All of these are great social events and, in the last two cases, a way of bringing history alive for the younger generation. My father, who only hunts with muzzle loading rifles and shotguns, used to go to local black powder rendezvous when I was young (most of the towns where I live pre-date both the American Revolution and the French and Indian War), and got me interested in colonial history and antique firearms. Many of the local trap-shooting competitions are for charity drives, and the registration fees are donated to local charities.
Finally, in the case of antique (and reproduction) guns, there is a historical interest. Two of my rifles, one a Marlin 336 lever action and the other a Nippur Lee-Enfield bolt action, have a marked historical interest (as well as being fine hunting rifles). The Nippur Lee-Enfield is the same design of the British Royal Army's first general use repeating rifle, but this one was made in 1967. In addition to that, it is chambered in 7.62mm NATO, rahther than .303 British. The reason is that when the United Kingdom switched to a 7.62mm NATO assault rifle in the early 1960's, India (which is still a British Commonwealth nation) could not afford enough of the new assault rifles for its army, so they used the Enfield manufacturing plant in Nippur to make a 7.62mm NATO No. 1 Enfield rifle.
The Marlin 336 Lever action is of interest due to the fact that it is the oldest continuosly produced rifle in the world. It's original designation was the Marlin 1893, but the design of the side-ejecting lever action mechanism (which set it apart from Winchester, Marlin's main competitor) is still almost identical to the original 1893 (the 336 was actually originally the designation for the Carbine version of the 1893 rifle, but the full-sized rifle was discontinued sometime in the 1960's).
Both of my are of historical interest. One is a reproduction of a cap and ball 1858 Remington Army model revolver in .44 caliber (although the bore diameter is actually .454" or the same as a .45 Colt Peacemaker), for which the originals saw a lot of service during the American Civil war. The Remington's design was sturdier and generally more reliable than the 1860 Colt Army and Navy series revolvers, and many officers purchased their own Remingtons during the war, with the result that almost as many Remingtons went to battle as Colts on the Union side. The second pistol has even deeper history, as well as some personal history. This pistol is a cap-lock .45 Kentucky muzzle loading pistol. This reproduction was made by my father when he was around 20, and about 10 years ago, he gave it to my Grandmother who, in turn, gave it to my Uncle (the one who I went bird hunting in Utah with), who gave it to me for Christmas last year.
Anyways, I think those are fairly good reasons for owning guns, myself. As for my views, anyone who is over 18, sane and has not commited any felonies should be allowed to own guns. The Clinton "Assautl Rifle" ban was a travesty, which I'm glad was reversed. That whole thing got through as a result of the oftentimes irresposible media misinforming people. You see all the assault weapons ban did was say, "Oh, that semi-auto AK-47 looks like a full auto AK-47, so it must be a bad gun! Oooh! I know! Let's BAN it!!!!11111one" Anybody who knows anything about guns or gun laws could tell you that full auto weapons have been strictly regulated for YEARS (you CAN own a full auto weapon, but you gotta get a special permit, and the only people I've ever heard of getting that permit are ex-military types who (a)were trained with machineguns and such in the military and (b)recieved an HONORABLE discharge). That's all I have to say on this subject.
claiming a pistol is used for sport or hunting it not really true. it's why the amish refuse them. they are low velocity, low accuracy, short distance guns. they were invented for self defence. first issued by the military purely for close quarters defence and are used anily for that reason. they are not good for shooting rabbits with. they are not a hunting weapon they were created with one person in mind. the death of a person.
people would a shoot a man over dignity? the death of a human being for that? a humam life is not what it achieves, not the riches it brings, not the social security number. it is a living breathing human being no more no less.
perhaps guns in america wouldn't be such a problem if it had a bbter society but it doesn't. it is greedy society in a nation of plenty. it is an aggressive society in a time of peace. it is a hateful society in a nation that supports justice. it is the worst society in the western world and that is the sole cause of it's crime rate, it's murder rate. adding the freedom to own a weapon to kill someone just exagerate a society which is flawed, dead and rotten.
on another note in light of recent rise in knife crime the government has banned the purchase and holding of all non cooking knifes. so stuff like machettees are now illegal, big pointy nasty things that you wouldn't be slicing your meat with all that kind of stuff is banned. they have no place int he home and have no purpose. there is no reason to have one and the government has seen this. the same should stand for guns.
When one has lost the debate, the next best thing is to randomly fling insults with no basis, eh?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Ok heres the thing..if there wasnt guns and weapons out there for whackos to potentially kill you, do you think many of the people that own it for defense, would even ever touch a gun?
Could people not just lock their doors at night, and maybe invest in making their home secure from intruders if they're that paranoid? If the criminal can't enter, wouldn't that remove the need for a gun to protect your home? Isn't prevention better than cure?
And I actually think having a gun would increase your chance of death if an armed intruder were to enter your house. Picture this. You hear a robber downstairs and decide to get your gun. You cautiously go downstairs with your gun to "defend" you and your property. The robber sees you first, BANG! Hard luck, you're dead. Only because the intruder feared for his own life when he saw that you had a gun. Maybe next time you'll let them just take the TV, instead of the TV and your life. Oh wait, that's right. There's not going to be a next time...
Guns are instruments of death. In a stand off between two people equipped with the things, someone is going to get seriously hurt. You're effectively playing a game of Russian Roulette with an armed robber when you decide to bring another gun into the situation.
So, why can't we just make sure to lock all our windows and doors at night, and if need be, buy some things (like better or more locks, alarms) to ensure our house's are virtually intruder-proof? It wouldn't be that hard. Is that not a better step to take to ensure our, our family's and our posessions safety?
A gun costs what.. couple hundred at most? I think some in my area are 50-60$. Security system, secure locks, plus strong infastructure, and shatter proof windows will equal a lot more then 50-60$ more then even a few hundred.
People don't always have that type of cash laying around. Sometimes it is all you got to buy a gun to defend yourself.
Anyways you NEVER go to your opponent unless you know you can win, else you let them come to you.
Also my house is extremely creaky... so I would know where the person was just by the sound the house was making. And guess what.. I know the way around the house without making noise. Also if you really wanna be tricky and you got a hand gun. Conceal the hand gun and a knife(in an easy to reach location) if you can. then get a bat or whatever and go look around. If he spots ya, he won't see a gun. So he will do whatever. The moment you get the chance you can shoot him.. or you can bide your time.
Also the only reason you should go outside your room when there is an intruder is to get to a phone to call the police(dunno bout you guys but I only got one phone and it is in the dinning room).
And for you wise ones who asks what if he feels you down to find any concealed weapons. Guess what he just did? The worst thing you can do is come within grappling range(unless you got a partner to back you up.. then it doesnt' matter).
Also Chess most of those prevenitives are easy to get around if you have any knowledge what so ever. Just about the only thing I couldn't get past was a really really good security system. Then again if I was going to target a house wiht one I would make sure to learn how to disable it.
If it was that simple to just seal everything up and have 100% no robbers, i wont own a gun D:
Actually, there are pistols (the Magnum Research BFR comes to mind) that can group 10 shots in a 1.5" group at 100 yards and have enough power to drop an American Bison at full charge (mainly due to the fact that it's chambered in .45-70 GOVT, one of the old Buffalo gun calibres). The muzzleoading .45 caliber Bird Head Kentucky pistol my dad made (and which I now own) has been proven to be able to hit rabbit-sized targets at about 50 yards (and trust me, a 150 grain .45 caliber round ball backed with 50 grains of FFg has more than enough whallop to take down small and even medium-sized game at 50 yards), and due to the amount of brush in the woods and rabbit hunting areas where I live, 50 yards will be about your longest shot. Heck, even my Remington Army Revolver with its 8" barrel and .45 Long Colt cartridges hand-loaded with a .255 grain cast lead bullet propelled with 30 grains of FFg Tripple 7 (a new black powder substitute available from Hodgdon) should be able to put a fairly decent group in at 50 yards (although I need to go to the ol' target range to test this one out). Besides, pistols can also be used for various target shooting competitions, which are fun and enjoyable in and of themselves... Especially the historically based ones, and anyone here is more than welcome to come to the annual Ft. Loudon Frontier Days French and Indian War re-enactment & black powder rendezvous to see what I mean. Oh, and I happen to be a member of another branch of the Mennonite church (the Bretheren), which happens to be what the Amish split off of as well, and I can tell you for a fact that there is nothing about pistols in any of our church regulations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
If someone commits a crime, in my book they've already shown that they're willing to go against all rules, and therefore should accept the consequences of their actions. In oh-so-perfect Europe, police may be able to arrive within 5 minutes of a distress call, but I live in America, and the nearest town with any kind of police department is 7 miles away. Due to the sheer twistiness of the roads between said town and my house, it would take at least 15-20 minutes for the police to arrive. By then, I'd most likely be murdered or robbed, which I do not feel is worth it. I already worked hard and paid my dues for my freedoms, and I'm not letting any parasitic criminal scumbag take what's mine. If they're lucky, I won't use any of the rifle or my shotgun. My family may be rather poor and we might not have a whole lot, but I will protect what my family worked their fingers to the bone for.Quote:
people would a shoot a man over dignity? the death of a human being for that? a humam life is not what it achieves, not the riches it brings, not the social security number. it is a living breathing human being no more no less.
Since this statement comes from a society that allows nudity on broadcast television, tied a bible to the tail of an ass that was driven out of Paris, legalized Marijuanna as well as just about every other drug, and has legalized prostitution, I'd say that this is the depth of hypocrasy.Quote:
perhaps guns in america wouldn't be such a problem if it had a bbter society but it doesn't. it is greedy society in a nation of plenty. it is an aggressive society in a time of peace. it is a hateful society in a nation that supports justice. it is the worst society in the western world and that is the sole cause of it's crime rate, it's murder rate. adding the freedom to own a weapon to kill someone just exagerate a society which is flawed, dead and rotten.
:lol: What's next? Outlaw hands and feet, since, with a little bit of training one can easily kill someone with those as well. I'd rather die than be forced to live in a country as repressive as that. ....And I'd bet $50 (US) that this stupid law has absolutely NO effect on crime whatsoever (just like the oh-so-effective British Gun Ban; thankfully the American public isn't stupid enough to vote for anyone who supports this kind of rubbish).Quote:
on another note in light of recent rise in knife crime the government has banned the purchase and holding of all non cooking knifes. so stuff like machettees are now illegal, big pointy nasty things that you wouldn't be slicing your meat with all that kind of stuff is banned. they have no place int he home and have no purpose. there is no reason to have one and the government has seen this. the same should stand for guns.
Although I probably disagree with his statement (I haven't taken it upon myself to actually read it, or anything. :p) I don't see what the problem is with all of that stuff (except for the Bible thing). I see no problem with legalizing most of these things. It seems oppressive to illegalize them.Quote:
Since this statement comes from a society that allows nudity on broadcast television, tied a bible to the tail of an ass that was driven out of Paris, legalized Marijuanna as well as just about every other drug, and has legalized prostitution, I'd say that this is the depth of hypocrasy.
I live in a country where if you walked down the main street of my town street with a gun in your hand and you were not a member of the police/military or some other law enforcement - people would think your crazy. I mean it - we'd think you were about to shoot us or their was a massacre about to occur. That is unless you were a farmer/lived out bush etc and were going to shoot some roo's/rabbits/foxes or any other acceptable things like that.
So - I think firearms should stay with the police/military/law enforcement only unless you had a approved permit and a acceptable explanation.
I don't know if I just made sense - but I hope you get my point. I like the fact I grew up and each time I go out I don't even think about getting shot.
- The most nudity you'll ever see on public television here is for soap commercials. They like to show a naked young woman's back and suggest things, it sells to the average male population. Otherwise it's movie nudity, which you'll get anywhere (e.g. James Bond movies).Quote:
Originally Posted by Hikaro Takayama
- Dunno about the Bible thing. Care to find an article about it for me? I'm interested, you see, I live in Paris, and never heard about it.
- Marijuana: It's illegal in my country, and in fact in most of the EU. The Netherlands and as far as I know maybe two other countries legalized it.
- Prostitution: while the act in itself isn't illegal, standing in the streets to find a "client" has been illegal for over a year now. Dunno about the rest of the EU.
Sounds quite oppressive to me. >=|Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
come on there is sex on tv... the porn channels, late night programs, certain films, educational programs where such things are necessary, things that are past the watershed can have them. of course not a single piece of nudity has ever been on american tv...........
the marijuna and prostitution thing only applies to one city in the whole of europe; amsterdam. not my country, not france, not switzerland, not sweden, not germany. not even holland. it is one city in holland. do not judge the whole of europe by one (successful) experiment within it. and not other drug (except mushrooms in amsterdam as well) are legal. that's right no heroine, no e, no crack, no amphetimines. no
to say american society is the reason for it's gun crime is not debatable. it is the one unique thing about america. canada, sweden, switzerland have huge levels of gun ownership, switzerland i believe is above america. so it is not the guns that are the problem there. the swiss can handle having an assualt rifle under their bed and don't have the habit of shooting each other. so if it's not the guns it's the people. and the society creates the people. it is the one unique thing about america and so must be the reason why it has a huge crime rate.
it's not a baseless argument. it's showing that one uniqueity has caused another.
no Hikaro Takayama they will not ban limbs. limbs are necessary. kitchen knifes are necessary. guns and bloody big machetes, samurai swords, big stabby slicy weapons not for cutting up steaks are not really necessary. same with baseball bats with nails in them, maces, knuckle dusters and flick knifes.
Yes, finally, you bring up a good place to start bashing America. Censorship isn't fully destroyed yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
That's a shame. Drugs should be legal the world over.Quote:
the marijuna and prostitution thing only applies to one city in the whole of europe; amsterdam. not my country, not france, not switzerland, not sweden, not germany. not even holland. it is one city in holland. do not judge the whole of europe by one (successful) experiment within it. and not other drug (except mushrooms in amsterdam as well) are legal. that's right no heroine, no e, no crack, no amphetimines. no
You know, I want to clear something up for some of our foreign guests.Quote:
to say american society is the reason for it's gun crime is not debatable. it is the one unique thing about america. canada, sweden, switzerland have huge levels of gun ownership, switzerland i believe is above america. so it is not the guns that are the problem there. the swiss can handle having an assualt rifle under their bed and don't have the habit of shooting each other. so if it's not the guns it's the people. and the society creates the people. it is the one unique thing about america and so must be the reason why it has a huge crime rate.
I'm an American. I live in a city. I have never, ever seen a gunfight. I've never seen someone be shot in the head. We aren't allowed to run around the streets proudly displaying our gun. I don't know what the hell people think America is (some sort of Old West scenario?), but it's certainly not a gun expo 24-7.
What has?Quote:
it's not a baseless argument. it's showing that one uniqueity has caused another.
I'll end the argument as I almost always do: who in the hell are you to determine what is necessary?Quote:
no Hikaro Takayama they will not ban limbs. limbs are necessary. kitchen knifes are necessary. guns and bloody big machetes, samurai swords, big stabby slicy weapons not for cutting up steaks are not really necessary. same with baseball bats with nails in them, maces, knuckle dusters and flick knifes.
people don't believe america is the wild west of old. but it has a huge gun crime rate compared to anywhere else in the world. that's just fact. there are more gun crimes per head of population in america than anywhere else. even places with more guns per person have less gun murders and crime. so it is not the guns that are the problem it is the society and people.
the uniqueity's i talked of was american society and it's high gun crime rate.
necessity is common sense. can you give me a reason for anyone owning a machete? for getting through the rain forest at the back of his garden? skinner knifes? bowie knifes? curved hunting knifes?*cough* (yeah because some ned in glasgow is use that for it's real use). and "cos it looks pretty on my wall" is not a necessity.
Watch what you're saying.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
There are lot of things we don't "need". I propose that personal computers are a selfish indulgence and we should do away with them because they destroy Mother Nature. Television promotes obesity (or, in the words of our very own JayTodaP, "obiesety") and therefore, for the good of the people, we should be forced to leave our homes rather than watch what we want (freedom is slavery, after all!). Food products made in a modern kitchen is a selfish luxury, because we could eat all manner of food that we grew ourselves - that's a necessity, and that's all that constitutes whether or not a choice is moral.
The moment that people in America want us to go back to only the bare necessities (i.e., go back to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle) is the moment I do leave America.
Thankfully, we haven't sunk that low, yet.
Living in a country with nudity on television must be truly horrible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hikaro Takayama
I don't understand why they all don't just flee to a country with only minor problems such as high murder rates.
Nah, I'd want to flee to a country with no economic or social liberty, myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
I hope you're kidding there, since you apparently live in Sweden. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by jrgen
1. Censorship is the start of irrational law.Quote:
(1)Since this statement comes from a society that allows nudity on broadcast television, (2)tied a bible to the tail of an ass that was driven out of Paris, (3)legalized Marijuanna as well as just about every other drug, (4)and has legalized prostitution, I'd say that this is the depth of hypocrasy.
2. I don't know anything about this one - but it does amuse me.
3. And I'd bet they don't waste $50 billion dollars per year spending drug-users to prison for a couple of years, throw them back out on the street, then throw them back in jail again for another few years. Repeat ad infinitum.
4. There is no logical reason for prosititution to be illegal. There's one big city in the US which doesn't have a huge spread of disease due to prositition. Guess which one it is? Las Vegas. Licensing and regulating prostitution(by legalizing) prostition does FAR more to prevent spread of disease than does prohibiting it altogether.
:eek:
for once(that I can recall as of late), I can completely aggree with Raistlin.
Anyways I would attempt to delve further into this, but first... I am sore from setting up for Dog Days.. not to mentioned sunburned(and I got 2 more long days to go yet... I will be in baaad shape), and My dog needs a bath.
but what I will say is this. Cloud 9 has pretty much already said that gun's isnt cause of our violent crime rate (other country examples). Thus outlawing them would be pretty pointless, no?
It is the society that needs reformed. Afterall all the censorship in america is kinda ridiculas considering we "are the land of the free". Censorship = freedom? since when?
Mexico, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the world has a firearm homicide rate thats 50 TIMES HIGHER than the US. England, with its recent gun bans has a firearms homicide rate that is about DOUBLE what the US has. Care to check your facts before making statements.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
BTW, the statement about the French tying a bible to the tail of a jackass and driving out of paris, then setting a nude whore on one of the cathedrals is from a religious tract that my church passes out that deals with immorality these days.
Hachifusa:
Are you serious about what you said about drugs should be legalized? Have you ever been to Amsterdam? On a flight I had connecting through Amsterdam on the Rastafarian... er Royal Dutch Airlines, over half the people's luggage got lost, and on top of that, mine was severely damaged when it finally showed up two weeks later. Might as well face the facts; drugs make you dumber than a brick
As for nudity on TV, even in this country things are going downhill, which is why I don't own a TV or watch it (okay, my flatscreen monitor has 13 TV channel capabilities, but I just use it for my PC and PS2). The point I was trying to make is that no society is perfect, and for everything that's "sick" or "wrong" with American socitey, I could find something that's "sick" or "wrong" with European, Asian, African, or Austallian society (and since I've been to all these places, except Africa, I can have the confidence of basing my statements off of firsthand observations).
In General, I think that censorship is a bad thing, however, I also believe that those few parents in this day and age who actually want to raise their children with some kind of moral values shouldn't have to constanly fight against the whoremongering media, filthy pimps on the street and all the other abominable things that people do in the name of freedom. I can guarantee one thing, when I have a family of my own, I will never allow my children to watch TV, except for the Discovery Channel, TLC, the History Channel, and Animal Planet. Everything else is just pure garbage (whether it is American, French, British, or whatever).
Believe you me, I'm not one of these self-righteous people who likes to preach from his pulpit, without ever being tested by the temptations of the flesh. I served in the US Navy for 6 years, and I've been dragged to whorehouses in Thailand (because of a Navy regulation that you must be accompanied by at least one other sailor at all times in foreign ports), I've seen the insides of bars all around the world (again,for the previously stated reason), yet I never gave in to the temptation to "know" women of negotiable affections or drink myself drunk. I know about the evils of this world because I've seen them firsthand, and it just makes me sad, really. I mean even when I was stuck on the ship as long as the other guys, I could find better things to do with myself in port than to drink myself stupid or go to some strip club.
But as ShunNakamura said, all of these things could be fixed if society was fixed. If parents would teach their children that life was about more than just chasing the almighty Dollar (or Euro, Yen, Dinar, etc), and that there IS a right and a wrong, and that there are consequences for doing wrong, then maybe, just maybe society as a whole might have half a chance. For my concluding remark, I read in a National Geograpic History book of Space Exploration in the 20th Century, the author made a remark that a realist is someone who will admit that maybe one day some aliens will show up and show us how to end poverty, famine and how to create a renewable environmentally friendly energy source. The optimist is one who thinks we can do all that ourselves.
Well, rational as that sounds, it's not what the numbers say. Scroll back up and find my links to the Kleck Study. Self-defense with a firearm is the safest respone to an attack, safer than knives, safer than bare hands, safer than reasoning, and safer than not resisting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cless
And you sir, get a medal for being freaking awesome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hikaro Takayama
Nobody thinks that it's that bad down there. Guns aren't the problem, there's no shortage of guns in Canada, but we don't have the homicde rates you do. Even if you take our smaller population into account, the number of homicides per capita doesn't even come near those in the U.S. *cough*proof and more proof *cough*Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
What I find surprising is the number of people saying they would gladly kill somone to protect their posessions. There is no reasonable argument you can make for this. Things can be replaced, insurance helps with that. They stole pictures of loved ones (not sure why a robber would give a crap about taking them), you'll still have your memories assuming you don't get yourself killed. Did they take your credit cards? Call the credit card company and have them deactivate them, or even better, let the cops use any purchases made on them to help find the guy. If your cards are stolen, you aren't liable for any purchases made on them. Worried about identity theft if they get you personal information? Again, let the cops track them down using it. The fact that some of you don't see cooperating with them, rather than confronting them as a reasonable option isn't just disturbing, it's down right scary.
As long as its not pointed to my Head, fine. Of course minors or felons shouldnt have them, even though they already do. Ill probably get a shotgun when Im older, fdor protection of course. My house has been broken into three times when I was by nyself at home. My pellet gun didnt really hurt the guy too much but it scared him off.
I've no argument to conjure against comporable Canadian-US homicide rates, but I will point out the obvious on the second link, which is that US homicide rates are largely falling, and in 2000 were at their lowest rate since 1965. I don't know the figures for 2003 and 2004, if they exist yet, but I'll wager the trend is pretty much the same. So, whatever's happened, I think the US has something of a handle on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
Actually, my justification is that you don't know someone is there only to steal your TV/Money, and even if they are you don't know they will run away once they have it, instead of seeking you out and beating you to death, raping your wife, etc. etc.. And yes, as I've said, death is a pretty damn disproportionate penalty for theft, but when someone has broken into your house, they're not in a courtroom and you're not a judge; they are in your home as a potential attacker (And I challenge anyone to actually ask such an intruder their intent.), and you are the defender. The two situations are not well exchanged. If you assume the best of them, there could be yet another case of a hardworking innoffensive family being traumatised or entirely wiped out. If you assume the worst, there could be yet another case of a criminal being injured or killed. It seems like very simple math to me. EDIT: Also, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think that people will be dissuaded from crime if they know people are willing to defend themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
Also bear in mind that many things have sentimental value, not just pictures and such. I'd be mortified if a robber grabbed a bundle of paperwork from my bedroom in the hopes of getting information he could use to purchase things, because chances are it's not anything he could gain from - I've only got one pile of such documents and they're kept seperate from the important ones, which are things like letters from friends, and my girlfriend, and so forth. He can take whatever banking and credit information he wants, but if he touches that, I will not hesitate in stopping them through whatever means are necessary. They are by far my most important possessions, and completely transcend monetary value.
I suspect that the US places such an emphasis on the importance of private ownership probably explains some of the difference in mentality. Whilst Europeans and Canadians seem reasonably happy to shrug and call their insurer, more Americans feel justified in actively defending their possessions. Which is something I not only understand, but fully advocate.
Why, of course I was serious.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hikaro TakayamaHachifusa:
Are you serious about what you said about drugs should be legalized? Have you ever been to Amsterdam? On a flight I had connecting through Amsterdam on the Rastafarian... er Royal Dutch Airlines, over half the people's luggage got lost, and on top of that, mine was severely damaged when it finally showed up two weeks later. Might as well face the facts; drugs make you dumber than a brick
You seem to be pretty moral, and know that there is a right and a wrong, and that one should not escape into drugs. I agree. I loathe drugs, and don't understand the necessity that people have to try them, or why people associate drugs with a higher plane of existence. However, I know that I am not able to force this belief on anyone, and that the government has no right whatsoever to tell me what I put in my own body. It is with that that I believe drugs should be legalized. For the same reason that the Prohibition of the twenties was illegal, so too is our current illegalized drugs.I am not advocating using a gun to take back a five dollar bill someone tried to steal. I am saying that they have no right to take my money, and I would gladly use my gun if someone were to enter my house and try to take everything I own by force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivi22
If anything, I think it's downright scary that you want to cooperate with a common criminal.
i actually think if just about every house owned a gun like 75% of people did and were willing to use them, crimminal activities in home invasions would lessen because would any run of the mill dude break into your house if they could easily kill them? Not as likely..it has to be one that is very planning and coordinated to do so.
Granted, if drugs were legalized and taxed we never would have to worry about a budget deficit ever again. Of course, my main objections are how it will affect society as a whole. One might argue that even with drugs being legalized, the only people who'd do them are those who're likely to try them anyways. The difference between, say, marijuana and alcohol is that you can have one glass of alcohol every week (or even every day) withoug becoming addicted. I even have a glass of wine or a shot of whiskey once in a blue moon (last drink I had was over a month ago), since it's supposed to be good for your health. Marijuana (or crack, or meth, or even nicotine), all it takes is one or two uses and you're fully adicted to the drug. I've seen what happense to people who are addicted to drugs (including alcohol), and if they're lucky they'll end up on welfare, while the not-so-lucky ones (since drug addicts are generally unemployable due to their brains being essentially fried all the time) end up in the gutter.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hachifusa
That being said, I know a few people who didn't even think of starting drugs because of the fact that they are illegal and to get caught using them would essentially have caused them to get kicked out of college and be forced to work at unskilled jobs for the rest of their lives (until someone stabs them in the back and steals their stash or they get shot while robbing some place to support their habit), and now think what would happen if we should have laws that make it easier to go down that path?! I'd move to the mountains somewhere and start my own monastary for people who have some sense about them and wait until everything collapses so we could re-build something halfways decent from the wreakage. Society needs laws in order to function, otherwise there'd be nothing left but complete anarchy, for which the only law is the 'law of the jungle' (which is 'Kill or be Killed,' or as the Japanese say it, '弱肉強食' (the flesh of the weak is food for the strong)).
Er, marijuana is not addictive at anywhere near approaching the same magnitude crack and heroin are addictive. In fact, it's generally agreed to be less addictive than alcohol and nicotine (and there are people who will claim that nicotine is even more addictive than heroin).
also caffiene has a vey high addiction and toxicity rate compared to some other illegal drugs.
the legalisation of drugs would also end the jobs of drug dealers and their prostitutues and gangs of murderers and thugs.
drugs would be safer. they would be regulated, pure, people would know what they are getting, what strength it is and it doesn't contain ajax powder. there would be a huge reduction in overdoses due to consistent strengths. they would also be cheaper even after tax. if we choose to create an industry out of it then we create jobs.
it's a total doublethink to say "prohibition of alcohol was a bad idea and caused lots of crime but drug related crime is not caused by drug prohitibition as drug prohibition is a good thing"
...Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
This is a strange occurance.
I agree completely with Cloud No. 9.
Odd.
Nobody should have guns. Ever.
I'd much prefer a sword of some kind. Or like... an axe or something. More fun.
so...no one should have guns because you would prefer to have a sword or something? :confused:
although i voted law-biding citizens i know it would never happpen too impossible people could be fakin bein good then one day thousands could go on a crime spree.
though i dont mind animal population control walkin around with guns-hunters.
mmmmm deer meat.
Cloud 9, I just want you to know that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
A .45 cal handgun is probably the best self defence weapon in the world. If you used it for hunting the deer would be happy you hit it with it and not a high power rifle. The .45 is made to expend its energy inside the body as it hits a body of water. If a round goes through a body, it has wasted energy and therefore does less damage. (obviously there are limits. A 427 nitro express rifle would have a bit more power than a .45, however, most people don't own rifles of that cal.)
As for your whole money versus life thing, I own weapons to protect myself, my family, and my property. If someone tries to stab me, they are getting shot. If someone attacks my wife, they are getting shot. If someone breaks into my house, they are getting shot. No explanations.
Here is the key that you have to understand: you must use common sense. If someone calls me a poo poo face -> I'm not going to shoot them. If someone wants to fight -> I'm not going to shoot them. If you carry a weapon, you must have common sense and you shoudl be held accountable for your sense.
Also, a .22 stub is no more dangerous than a .50 cal chain gun. Its all how you use them. Pointed at someone, a .18 is more dangerous than a bazooka hanging on a wall. Also, a fully automatic weapon is no more dangerious than a BB gun. It is how you use them. Case and point -> my favorite gun to shoot at target pratice is the .44 magnum 6". I shoot it well and it has a rewarding sense of recoil. Other don't, so who cares? Its personal preference. If you want to shoot a fully automatic weapon, feel free. I know several that own them and they are very responsible with them, and they have fun with them. Whats wrong with that?
People using a gun with touchy fingers? Whats that about? If you carry a weapon, you must be responsible enough to learn how to use it and not have an accident (also, most guns dont' have 'hair triggers' anyway. The S&W 99 has an 8 lb pull in single action. No twitchyness is going to help that)
The vast majority of weapon incidents come from accidents. From those that are intentional, the VAST majoirty save someones life that was innocent. Only a very small percentage are from people that are commiting an illegal act. And of those, almost none are with legally sanctioned weapons. AKA-Guns help more than they hinder. Want proof? I'll provide it.
Lastly, the only thing wrong with American soceity is morons. Thats it. The US rocks. I live in a hard working city and am proud of my life. I follow the rules and take pride in what I do. Where do you get your anti-america thoughts from Cloud 9? Micheal Moore? The biggest moron that ever lived?
Hmm, the rounds that killed kids at columbine were bought at k-mart. Obviously K-mart shoudl be held accountable. What kind of garbage is that?
Once again, guns don't kill people, people do.
It's true that people do need guns as a matter of self-defence, but many gun related deaths has occured that way. Even a good person can go crazy and start shooting people. I guess only the police and the government should have guns because of that. But I guess people will be people.
Again, I am tempted to go on a killing spree with a knife or even, dare I say, my bare hands, to show that a great many people can be killed without firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by General-Beatrix
Moreover, the idea that only the police and government should have guns is laughable. One of the best reasons for having a gun is defense against an overly powerful government.
karatehero i think you missed my point. i said handguns are purely for use at close quarters and so self defence. if you want to shoor deer you use a rifle. handguns were first invented for close quarters and continue to be used that way. but they are not effecient hunting weapons. and that's why the amish have a problem with them.
they are soloelt designed for use against other people and are not hunting weapons. hunting weapons the amih have no problems with.
and while you say that chain gun is less dangerous than a bb gun. it's all about the effeciency of the killing. why would you ever need a chain gun to protect yourself? or a bazooka? these weapons were made to kill vast numbers of people very very quickly.
and while guns don't kill people, people do. guns just make the whole process faster, easier and more effecient.
and i'm not a huge fan of moore.
and guns are no protetcion against a modren government who have control of the army and so tanks, and missles, and planes.
During the Revolutionary War, the Americans' technology was outdated compared to the British, by far. And today, America is the world power.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
It has a hell of a lot more to do with the spirit of the people fighting than the actual weaponry. Behind all of those tanks and missles, the government is made up of people, and people can die from guns pretty easily.
sorry here but i'm gonna be really really controversial here and reply to karate kid once again. sorry if it offends but it is there to make a valid point.
if all weapons are fine to hold. you list a bazooka and chain gun as exmaples. lets take the bazooka and it's explosive nature for example. i might like blwoing stuff up. so i buy a few bits of c4 and watch it go bang and stuff. is this okay? to have c4?
if i am allowed to have whatever weapon i want can i have huge quantities of acetone peroxide? and if i can carry them as you point out. can i carry about 10 pounds of it on a london bus?
And I can drive my car and aim for roadkill, so let's ban cars?
Potentially, everything is a weapon, but we don't ban everything. The difference I see between owning a gun and let's say a bazooka is that a gun isn't dangerous by itself, if you drop it on the ground, nothing will happen, same if you drop a bullet. With rocket launchers and explosives in general, their manipulation is in itself dangerous, which is where I draw the line between what one can have or not.
And you can smoke marijuana every day of your life for thirty years, and you still won't be addicted.Quote:
The difference between, say, marijuana and alcohol is that you can have one glass of alcohol every week (or even every day) withoug becoming addicted. I even have a glass of wine or a shot of whiskey once in a blue moon (last drink I had was over a month ago), since it's supposed to be good for your health.
While that is true with something like meth, marijuana is not even addictive at all.Quote:
Marijuana (or crack, or meth, or even nicotine), all it takes is one or two uses and you're fully adicted to the drug
Exactly, I think that all types of firearms (Including automatic weapons, bazookas, etc.) should all be legal, for the sole purpose of combating the government. What if, one day, we wanted to revolt? It's gonna be alot harder if all we have is handguns, thats for damn sure.Quote:
Moreover, the idea that only the police and government should have guns is laughable. One of the best reasons for having a gun is defense against an overly powerful government.
Well even if we don't need to fight the gov.... What if a gang decides they wanna go after you. A non-auto pistal can't take out 10-20 guys before they riddle you. But if you have say a bazooka.. well you know what? if you are in any inclosed area it don't really matter how many there are.. heck even if htey have bazookas it is still leveled out since in a closed enough area it may only take one shot to wipe out 10-20 guys(might need something bigger then a bazooka though.. not sure Explosive weapontry has never appealed to me much.. too easy to hurt yourself with it.. at least with a gun you have to HIT yourself... hittinga wall beside you would kill you with a highly violate gun).
Automatic weapons, explosives and various other assaualt weapons shouldn't be allowed in the possession of civilians. Civilians shouldn't be able to fight a war, or an army - just one another, in-case of self-defence. There's no reason for someone to own an assault rifle, a bazooka or a 0.50" caliber machine-gun. A handgun for self-defence purposes, and a shotgun\hunting rifle for hunting, those are cool.
Too much fire-power in the hands of un-checked and un-governed forces or individuals is a very, very dangerous thing.
Frankly, I think owning a fire-arm should be conditioned with a military service of at least a year or so, and\or thorough study of weapons, the way to use and handle them safely. Most people aren't mad terrorists or lunatic murderers - just ignorant about the proper handling of guns, which leads to many accidents.
to have a revolt nowadays is impossible anyway. to think tianamen square would have been any different if they were armed? or that guy standing in front of the tank would have had much of a chance if he had a 12 guage with him? times have past when anyone can fight a war. it just isn't available anymore.
and what about these gun nuts with enough weapons to fight a small skirmish?
Whilst I aggree with this general statement(that people are ignorant about proper handling and they should be taught blah blah), I do not appree with forcing it with military service.... sure enable to protect yourself and family you must first go out and kill other people in a war you don't aggree with.{/sarcasm]Quote:
Originally Posted by War Angel
Am taking it with current situation. Don't aggree with military service though a training program would be nice.
Sorry cloud, I'm not seeing your point.
A .50 cal magnum handgun has more stopping power than most rifles. Why do people use rifles in hunting? They are more accurate. Its hard to use a hand gun and a scope. Why do the amish use hand guns? I dunno, I guess they need schooled.
Why are people afraid of what guns can do? No gun is any more dangerous than other. Its the intent of the person that has it, not the weapon itself. Didn't 911 prove that relatively harmless devices (planes and box cutters) can be extremely deadly! What about Oklahoma City? Fertilizer!
Is it OK to have acetone peroxide? Sure! Fun for the whole family....if you follow the rules and regulations setup for its use and you are responsible for it. If you have a rock on your property, and you want to blow it up, and its legal, go for it. Blowing up a bus? If its yours, and its legal and its not hurting anyone, sure! Its yours. Responsibility is the key. Morons like those in London shouldn't have had it. They hurt people, and broke the law. They should be found and eliminated.
Weapons are what you make them. They aren't deadly on their own. Isn't that what our second amendment says? We are allowed to carry and own weapons? But the key is -> you can't be stupid and irresponsible.
Oh - and by the way. If you make fun of me or my name again, you WILL invoke the master. Be careful what you say...
no. the amish DON'T use handguns. they refuse to. as becuase you say rifles are designed for hunting. handguns are designed for use against other people not animals. that is why they refuse.
i would not like to live in the state we are in right now and then allow people to legaly make bombs. what's wrong with that? because the only time they can be arrested is after it has happened. you cannot prevent the usage.
sorry about the name thing it was actually a genuine mistake.
Anybody else see the irony in these two paragraphs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And I reckon that if half of China had been armed and willing to fight, there'd have been a pretty damn big change to how Tianeman Square went, or the aftereffects of it.
Its all good. The master has retreated ;)
You can kill someone with a gun, a rock, a knife, electrical shock, a swift punch, a car, a boat, a plane, a bike, a stop sign, a razor blade, a beer bottle, a rabid wild animal, a headbutt, an alergic reaction or known illness, bleach, many other household chemicals, stairs, ladders, trains, plastic bags, bad cooking, rope, arosaul cans, fire, water, earth, push off a cliff or into traffic, mean farts, and even love...
But yeah, banning guns will be great! Makes people get creative :rolleyes2
Never was much for the subject
This is false - Amish will use hand guns - never against a person, but they do not - not use them by any means. I can say this cause I have met an amish man while i was helping at my aunts farm. The prefer the small size for putting down cows and such.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Bipper
Don't worry - i am harmless!
the problem with a gun is the ease to which it is done.
the amish thing i quote from my RMPE classes so maybe it is either outdated or from a differen sect.
put a 50 cal machingun on the table, don't touch it, and watch. does it fire? does it turn, point at you and yell "gimme all your money or i'll blow your brains out all over the ect. ect."? no. do the same with any other gun, it just sits there. only in the wrong hands is a gun dangerous. law abiding people should have the right to own firearms, besides, if firearms were illegal, the only ones who would have them would be the criminals.
i could say the same with acetone peroxide and a few detonators.
And forums and an internet conection evidently
eh?
jst saying that the interent can be a volitale warzone as well:) and here we are fighting it lol
I know we are debating - and that is what makes this world great... the freedom
Bipper
Freedom is an outdated premise. It gives too much power to the corporations.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Quote:
I belive Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early from work do.
quoted from bill engval.Quote:
Originally Posted by Squall Isenhart
if americans are allowed to have guns because guns don't kill people. why can't they have large quantities have acetone peroxide? explosives don't kill people, people do.
That's true. Let's legalize it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
if they do can i carry it on a bus?
Yup. So long as you've taken the proper precautions to ensure there is no risk of accidental detonation, or that the risk is as small as possible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Also, kinda stop the pathos argument, it's tiresome and doesn't work. Freedom > Safety, to paraphrase ol' Ben Franklin.
so i should have the right to carry high explosives on the top of a london bus? two people have done that in the last 4 weeks. no good came of that freedom.
Well owning a gun and taking the gun wherever you wish are different things. When someone keeps the gun at home then its pretty much under most precautions to be fine. But should someone just tout it wherever they wish then its a problem because anyone and everyone can own a gun and bad thing smight happen. Hence why there are control laws that keep the gun safe in your home for protection only. The only place where i can fathom taking your gun to is the range to practice.
so how many people are you going to kill by walking in and saying BANG!!!!!Quote:
I belive Guns don't kill people, husbands that come home early from work do.
seriously guns kill people.
"put a weapon in your hand and eventually it will be used"
-Celisia
its true. you get desensitized to frequintly it is allowed. what you think is wrong today, may seem like normal a few years from now.
The point is people that are going to have a gun to shoot you will eventually shoot you anyway guns legalized or not. So its good to have one for countermeasures. Looking at weapons, knives are WAY more dangerious than guns. You can easily and unsuspiciously walk up to someone and stab them somewhere. Not the arm but somewhere like organs in your stomach or your backside easily casuing death fast and much more deadlier than the gun could.
I completeley agree with ya lionx. Tabooing things just ssem to make them a hotter subject, no?
Bipper
Yes, and that's reason enough to trample on the freedoms of the sixty million of us Brits who aren't going to be doing a thing like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
They never had that freedom in the first place, now did they?Quote:
so i should have the right to carry high explosives on the top of a london bus? two people have done that in the last 4 weeks. no good came of that freedom.
I love you, you know. You're the best liberal I ever met.Quote:
Originally Posted by nik0tine
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionx
so you are saying we should make it easier for people to kill others.
the majority of people destined to be shot will never own a gun in their lives. what good is legalizing them for protection when the people who need protecting woulnt buy them anyways because they feel they are to dangerous.
:p and you do realize that you are the best conservative that I've ever met, right?Quote:
I love you, you know. You're the best liberal I ever met.
So you are saying that by not promoting guns for self-defense it would save the people out there that would be shot anyway? If they think they are so dangerious and only madmen would buy guns, their loss, their life. Your way of thinking is no better than just leaving people be. Why take self-defense courses when you are going to be shot anyway, why do we even fight back? No! Let them walk over us i say! :rolleyes2Quote:
so you are saying we should make it easier for people to kill others.
the majority of people destined to be shot will never own a gun in their lives. what good is legalizing them for protection when the people who need protecting woulnt buy them anyways because they feel they are to dangerous.
a large portion of people shot are shot on accident. if you allow more people to own guns, their are more chances for such accidents to occur.
why do we have so many self defense courses, and defensive weapons. their should never be a need to use them.
if you allow the public to have guns you are consenting murder, murder that could have been avoided. and its true some people will find a way to get guns back, but that is a small percentage of the people who would actully use them.
so lets say we just give rhem to good law abiding citizens, whats stopping those people from using them, or selling them to "Lower class citezens"
you woulnt stop all violance by getting rid of guns, but you could stop a large portion of it.
Figures please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
I'm sure the thugs will be quite happy to listen to your compellingly erudite reasoning whilst they attempt to take your cellphone, wallet, iPod, and probably an iBall for good measure.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
No, if you allow the public to have guns you're condoning self defense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
What, all poor people are criminals now?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Yes, of course, the absence of guns leads to a peaceful, pacifistic, utopian society! That's why crime rates in Britain are higher than the US, and crime rates in Canada are so low!Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Well I think most of us here would be in favor of a free(or small fee) mandated training course before you are allowed to have it. That way you know what you are doing. Though the course would have to be actually EDUCATING... not like the driver's ed in my area :rolleyes2.
Anyways, if you take guns away from the law abiding citizens.. what are we supposed to do when faced with a gun from a non-law abiding citizen or alien... hmm? After all they already are breaking(going to break the law) so why not get a gun? And I recall hearing(it is actually true in my area even) that some illegal drugs are easier to obtain then the legal ones. So I don't see why guns wouldn't at least somewhat follow this same trend.
training course?Train someone to use a gun for free??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?Quote:
Originally Posted by ShunNakamura
i'll support gun ownership when i can have a bomb factory in my home.
I didn't feel like digging for recent figures, but here goes:Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
In 2000, 600 deaths were caused by accidents involving firearms. In comparison, in 1995, 1,500+ murders involved the use of firearms. also, just to see what 600 means, in 2000, 43,000 deaths were caused by car accidents.
so endless 900 more people were murdered with firearms than were killed by accidents (if you consider the firearm crime rate to have not shifted a great deal)
if so that means that more gun deaths are caused by murder than accidents. rendering that side of the argument wrong.
i didnt say more, i just said a large portion. which is true. thats 600 people who would be alive if it wernt for ownership of guns.
And that's 43,000 more that would be alive if it weren't for ownership of cars. Let's ban cars?
Now that your reasoning has been proven worth, well, naught, try again and better luck next time.
OR Fith, if everyone had a gun, would anyone even DARE intrude and try to kill you knowing they can die the exact same way? It will be that much harder. They cant break into a home expecting complete dominence, they can expect a bullet comming back their way.
I am all for a training course for a small fee. For legit gun owners, they need to know the ins and outs of the thing, so it can be used properly. If you are going to let people use them, you might as well train them.
ok, so lets say everyone owned a gun for self-defence. what happens when people start getting paranoide. "ohh, it looked like he was about to pull his gun on me so i shot him." and what about when people start getting mad. "i didnt think, i just acted." "shoot first and ask questions later."
there are other means of defense than fire arms. like why dont we all just start wearing bullet proof armour. or we could all own tazers.
and whats next then, how far can we take the extrem of self defense. lets all have private planes to air strike people who look at you funny. lets all build super weapons because if we have one other people woulnt shoot theirs at us.
and what about the people who dont care if they die. the ones who think it is the right course, or dont think there is any reason to live. all they are concerned about is taking out as many people as possible before they die. do you think gun ownership will stop them? look at the "terrorists" of 9/11. they didnt care if they died. and the united states had much more advaced weapons then what we are talking about now. and they did it because they thought it was the right course of action. they didnt care if they died. all they cared about was taking as many people as possible with them
i would be all for banning cars, they are dangerous to all people in so many different forms and their are much saffer ways to get around. i dislike driving. and would not care if cars were banned.
now i wouldnt mind about the course but look at drivers ed. that is about safe handeling of a car and more people die in car crashes than in shootings. so dose a safty course really make that much difference.
also, one reason more people die from cars is because anyone can buy a car. it would be the same with guns. when anyone can buy a gun they will be that much more dangerous than before. regardless of how many safty courses people take.
maybe some people should own guns, but i dont think any should be able to. and not to any extrem, like when they legalized assult rifels.
this will be a akward post, i smashed much of my right hand with a 200-400 lb cement block.
first and foremost, i think i already mentioned that it would have to be better then drivers ed. secondly they could also test your temperment or some such so that if you are prone to violence when angry and prone to anger they could deny you access to guns till you have proven control.
i would type out a longer explaination(with fewer loops) but typing with ony my left hand and my right pinky finger is kinda painful.
ok then, guess we better start banning all dangerous things. Pens and pencils have to go, im sure theres at least a few deaths every year related to pens and pencils. oh yeah, and theres lots of people who kill other people with there bare hands, so i guess everyone better chop off there hands, otherwise your condoning muder. in fact, limbs of any kind could kill other people, so it all has to go. Oh! and teeth! i almost forgot. Somebody could decide to bite someone to death, so I better go get those pulled out right now. Cuz, y'know, dont want to be condoning murder over here. :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
okay i think thats enough of that. hopefully you got my point.
my opinions on cars are my own as with anything else you are welcome to disagree with them. however the fact that you chose to argue with that part of my post instead of any of the parts relating to guns is very odd. i would almost think you ran out of arguments to the things i said.
also i know that you said it would have to be better than drivers ed. thats kinda half were i got that argument from. and i know that it would have to be about 100% better.
how do you test emotions? how can you be sure that something that happens once will always happen that way again? is it possible to tell how much a person can take? i mean they could fake it for the test so as to be allowed the gun. and what would stop them? you would have to do extended testing on each person to determine something like that.
It's not so much that we ran out of arguments as much as your logic sucks. Though, strangely, you're not contradicting yourself like most people. More stangely, I think it's worse - you actually are against machinery.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
I guess you can be anti-anything, but just let me to my own stuff.
the emotion things would be tested by background check mostly. since u hav to be 18 to buy anyways they would hav sources for background. though i am unsure about how they would pass it...
gah.. give me a weak or so so that i can type my ideas out better(i refine them by typing/writing em). or course if dad is right it may be longer then a couple weeeks. thinks i may hav pain for a month or 2.
once again i apologize for the sloppy bad post :cry:
Why should guns be banned, my grandpa first took me shooting when i was seven and i havent had a single accident. They are no more dangerous then other objects. You can kill someone very easily if you want to, gun or no gun. Look at your house for instance, how dangerous is that. Anything electric can electrocute you, anything gas can gas and anything hanging can hang you. In the attic there is a big brass drum that contains gallons of water under pressure. The kitchen is full of knives and buring thing. Does your house sound so safe now? And guns are a legitimate method to have fun, its an olympic sport.
guns are designed to kill. the things in your house (with the exception of knives) are designed to be as safe as possible. so yes. my house is as safe as it will ever be.
so you have gone shooting since you were seven. and this is my point (one of them) you think guns are perfectly safe. you never had any problems with them and always have fun. you are getting desensitized to guns. they are an everyday thing to you and you will just keep having fun with them. now thats ok if you are having fun at like a target range. but what about when you start getting riskier? if you are like most people i know then eventually it will be "ohh lets just go out to the woods to shoot." if you are like most people (god willingly hopefully not) the fun will max out the risk and eventually you woulnt mind shooting anywhere (or at anything)
olympic sports can be very dangerous. lets look at some dangerous olympc sports. shockput, discus, javalin throw, fencing, Taekwondo, wrestling, boxing, archery, Equestrian, and judo. just because they are olympic sports, it dosnt mean they are safe. the people in the olympics train for years to do these things. they have medical staff and what not standing by at all times. even they realize it is extremly dangerous.
(note i know you did say have fun, not is safe. im just making a point here.)
(i didn't read the whole discussion, but...)The problem with very much gun control is that no matter what, bad people are going to end up with them. so...if you are attacked in your own home and aren't allowd to own a gun, how are you going to defend yourself?
You sound just a bit paranoid, here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
can i have my bomb factory yet?
Sure kid, knock yourself out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Guns have safety locks and matienence tools as well. To me its built for self-defense like every other weapon out there. I can take a kitchen knife and kill someone, and that wasnt designed for killing.
I agree with Hachi you are being too paranoid here. That makes absolutely no sense. We dont have to be as "sensitized" as you. On that note lets never touch cards, because they can cut people too. O_O Its because we are always so close to cards, that we are not worried about them and their potential danger of cutting yourself.Quote:
so you have gone shooting since you were seven. and this is my point (one of them) you think guns are perfectly safe. you never had any problems with them and always have fun. you are getting desensitized to guns. they are an everyday thing to you and you will just keep having fun with them. now thats ok if you are having fun at like a target range. but what about when you start getting riskier? if you are like most people i know then eventually it will be "ohh lets just go out to the woods to shoot." if you are like most people (god willingly hopefully not) the fun will max out the risk and eventually you woulnt mind shooting anywhere (or at anything)
anything is not safe. The chair i am sitting on can break any minute, and the TV i am looking at might explode and catch fire. And omg if i dare open the window..i might even get...dust particles...O_O
You are blowing this way out of proportion, guns by themselves can be anything they wish. I feel they were made out for self-defense, you think they are there for the sole purpose of killing in which they certainetly are not. Not everyone that holds a gun out there is a maniac, get THAT out of the system.
"Sure kid, knock yourself out." yyyyeeaaaahhh i can build a weapon designed for the sole use of killing people..... or i can buy one.
At your local Wal Mart :D Its cheaper there.
dude, guns were made for the sole purpose of killing. if you were attacked in your house, you would use the gun to kill your attacker. what else would you do with it? try to trade it to him in exchange for leaving. sorry but the purpose of guns is to kill.
umm... sry but i guess i need to add that guns that use bullets were made to kill. i mean you woulnt kill much with a water gun. so if you are talking about guns that use bullets, they were made for the purpose of killing.
the gun itself isn't neccesarily to kill. though all can. certian bullet types are less about killing and more about applying enough force to stop them. basically the bullet is what decides how dangerous a gun is. the bullets that expand as they enter the body and make your loungs be full of holes.. those are the deadly ones.
anyways... how do we know the knife wasn't originally made to kill and then evolved to what we now percieve it? or any number of tools. regulate them.. banning them won't do much good when compared to a properly regulated system.
this will prolly be it for tonight. suppose to drive tommorrow and this hand is kinda sore after trying to use it all day.
Yes, and the fact you can put a few pounds of pressure with your finger on a trigger, if you're eighty five years old, 4'11", and weight about 90 pounds and yet still fight of someone a foot taller and thrice your weight, is why guns are a very GOOD thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fithos
Agreed, those are the only kinds that you would use to kill. Roundtips are pass through on design so it can stop the person. I prefer roundtips anyway, cheaper.Quote:
the gun itself isn't neccesarily to kill. though all can. certian bullet types are less about killing and more about applying enough force to stop them. basically the bullet is what decides how dangerous a gun is. the bullets that expand as they enter the body and make your loungs be full of holes.. those are the deadly ones.
Geettt ouut of my property! *bam bam* O_o; Sorry lol it reminded me of those Simpsons thing.Quote:
Yes, and the fact you can put a few pounds of pressure with your finger on a trigger, if you're eighty five years old, 4'11", and weight about 90 pounds and yet still fight of someone a foot taller and thrice your weight, is why guns are a very GOOD thing.
1) the knife was designed to kill.
2) i guess im starting to reconsider my point about guns. i still dont like em, but when used properly they are fine. (problem being to many people use them irresponsibly.)
3) did any of you guys hear about the hunting incedint in Wisconsin?
4) how many of you guys actully own guns? and what do you use them for?
The knife could have been made to cut food who knows where it first came up?
We only hear cases that they are used responsibly. There is no reason for anyone to cover their news time for people that did. Thats why people think theres more irresponsible ones out there, because there are never reports of people using them properly.
No tell us the thing in Wisconson
And i own a few..although not under my name currently. THey are for self-defense only and practice at the range. I cannot dare think of taking it wherever i go or shooting some random stranger.
I htikn we should lose the guns, and go back to bows and swords. guns just seem to be too much of a pussy way to kill someone, be a man (or not), use a sword!
ummm..... nicely said.^^
its not just things i hear, its also people i know. they are completly irresponsible and yet still own guns.
in wisconsin, during hunting season, right after they allowed assult rifels, there were a group of guys hunting on private land. they were going about their bussiness when this asian guy came along (not being racial, just telling the story.) he wanted to hunt on their land and (supposedly) because they didnt know him they turned him away. well he got made and opend up with his assult rifle. i think two of them died and the others were severly wounded.
now i guess if you had rifels for hunting, i dont like it but hunting is something people have done since the dawn of time, its ok. but why would you leaglize assult rifels for hunting? unless you wanted your meat cooked before it hit the ground.
When asked about gun control laws I find myself invariably turning to one of the best quotes on the subject I have come across:
"Criminals don't obey the law. It's more or less a requirement for the job."
In short, by forcing everyone to turn in guns, all you are doing is preventing good honest, law ibiding citizens from protecting themselves, as people in heavily gun-controlled countries will probably tell you. What's more, even if you do somehow manage to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, you still wind up with the same problem. Knives are the fallback weapon of choice for the main criminal element, and unlike a firearm, the power of a knife is directly related to the strength of the one wielding it. The Colt .45 wasn't called "The Equalizer" for nothing. The fact that it is easy for anyone to kill someone with a firearm is precisely the reason why they are necessary. Even a little old lady can take out someone breaking into her house. Criminals are a lot less likely to rob, rape, or otherwise harm others if they know that there's a good chance that they will get their heads blown off by the handgun that their target has with them.
"1) the knife was designed to kill."
not anymore. and my country has recently banned all knifes desgined to be weapons.
Your country isn't known for its wonderful treatment of citizens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
it actually is. doesn't have a torture camp in cuba for one.
Yeah, it enslaves its people, thereby allowing the poor to get slightly more and brings the rest of the country down to poverty, too. Hooray for controls!Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
and your country mean-while perpetuates misery.
and my country isn't in poverty.
Socialism does nothing but perpetuate poverty. Wealth is only made through production, which is acheived best through lasseiz-faire capitalism.
I don't consider a government which impresses its citizens into slavery to be a country that does anything BUT "perpetuate misery."
Which country is it that is most free? The US. Which country is it that all those poor countries mooch most off of? The US. Which country has produced the most wealth? The US. Do you just completely ignore that connection, or are you just too indoctrinated to even think coherently?
which country has fought in more wars since 1945? america. which country has pumped out more co2 gas than any other? america.
and other countries try to survive by asking for a small amount from the glut which your country has. but in cases like niger and the surrounding countries it ignores it. and if you can call a country which has a torture camp in 3 countries "free" then i pity your freedom.
captalism does nothing but perpetuate the misery of the many all 3 billion of them. while keeping happy the few.
"I don't consider a government which impresses its citizens into slavery to be a country that does anything BUT "perpetuate misery.""
my country is not enslaved. i am not in some soviet bloc country. i have the right to earn, to build, to run a business, to an education, to life, to freedom. you know nothing about my country so don't judge it. you would probably have trouble drawing it's borders.
Uh, Cloud, give me a break. That was total ad hominem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
hmmm?
Keep this crap out of this thread. The topic here is firearms, not a steel-cage deathmatch between the US and Niger. What's more, given the number of untruths that you have spread in this post, I don't really want to see it at all. But, since there are currently two threads set up for the purposes of your bitching, you can at least keep it out of unrelated topics. You hate America. Fine, stick it in your sig and be done with it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
actually hachifusa started all this with his cheap insult to my country on an unrelated thread. my country isn't niger, you don't need to be a citizen of a country to care. tell me these "untruths". you have no right to choose what i post on this or any other thread. if it is unacceptable then a mod will tell me not you.
*Shrug*Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Whatever. What country you come from doesn't really matter to me, except that you don't live in the US, but you are bitching about it anyway. I just took a guess based on the thread you created about a country. Sorry I was wrong, I'll change that, if you like.
Anyway, as to the untruths:
First, the US has no torture camps. We have camps for holding POWs and other criminals. We don't actually mistreat them.
Second, the US is not the largest supplier of CO2 to the atmosphere. That award actually belongs to countries who cannot afford the filters and other devices we use to keep our dangerous gas emmissions low.
Third, while capitalism isn't perfect (and I never claimed it was), it is one of the best systems developed thus far. It doesn't perpetuate misery, it works to avoid it, and it works much better than communism.
Fourth, our people are certainly more free than most of the others on this planet. As an example of our freedom, the US mainstream media (which, due to the large number of falsehoods in your post, I'm guessing is where you got most of your information) is allowed to post anti-goverment statements, even untrue anti-government statements, without being taken out and shot.
Finally, if you like, I'll be happy to contact the mods about your off topic posts. The Lord knows that I've been bitched at enough for it. I was just trying to give you fair warning. I would've just PMed you, but I can't stand people telling lies about my country, especially when they have no clue what they're talking about.
the crimes committed in guantanamo bay that breach the human rights acts are well documented. torture is committed there. it's reported document and even brought to us in the lovely kubark manual.
the us does have the biggest co2 outout. per head and absolutely. since 1990 it has increased 11%. courtesy oif the lovely folks at the bbc. it produces 24% of the worlds co2. end of point.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...change/usa.stm
tell 3 billion citizens of this world living in poverty that the current system is the best.
i have freedom of speech on my country to. you can have what you want on tv. and we don't shoot peope for it either.
and i will bitch about america as long as it continues to affect me. in fatc it doesn't even need to affect me. because like niger and sudan and every other place in this world where it exists. i will continue to bitch as long as injustice in this world ends.
i told no lie about your country. and while you are telling the staff here about this thread going off topic. tell them that it wss a progression from hachifusa false comment and cheap pop at my country.
*Sigh*
I'm taking this to PMs, and I would like to take a moment to apologize for the off topic "discussion".
One quick post- the misstreatmant of anyone, when it happens, is not government sanctioned. Unless you need to torture the hell outta someone to get em to talk - se that on a lot of bad made for tv movies ;)
Anyways I strongly belive that the Right to bear arms - guns - is important. It seems to me that the first ammentdmant was put there to ensure that if the government took over the country wrongly, and to keep the government in check- we can revolt. Although with all the new weapons it would be a null point lol.
I mean - the amendment was written be rebels, who prolly listened to rock and roll and cussed frequently :) (jking) stick it to the man G.W.!
*wonder if we should have the right to bear nukes? * lol
Bipepr
Mostly correct. The right to bear arms was put in there specifically to allow the populace to rebel in case the government got too tyrannical.Quote:
Originally Posted by bipper
Where you're wrong is the numbers. The first amendment was freedom of speech, relegion, etc... The second was right to bear arms.
It is a significant step up from everyone except for the handful of feudal, royal, or imperial persons on the planet being oppressed. Back then, it wasn't 50% as you claim who live in poverty, but more akin to 99.5%, probably more, but .9 is cliched.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
Tell me Cloud.
I must make inferences from that, that your physical capabilities are in some way impeded by your disability. If this is indeed the case, then how would you defend yourself if someone broke into your house or assaulted you in the street?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9