PDA

View Full Version : Step to me...



Fa-Q!
07-04-2005, 13:23
I got something for yo a$$!!!

TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.

The measure, the top priority of the National Rifle Association in Florida this year, passed the House 94-20 on Tuesday. It had already passed the Senate.

Bush, who has championed tougher penalties for people convicted of using guns in crimes, said the bill is about self-defense and called it "a good, common sense, anti-crime issue."

The measure essentially extends a right Floridians already have in their home or car. Under present law, however, people attacked anywhere else are supposed to do what they can to avoid escalating the situation and can use deadly force only after they've tried to retreat.

"I'm sorry, people, but if I'm attacked I shouldn't have a duty to retreat," said the bill's sponsor, state Rep. Dennis Baxley. "That's a good way to get shot in the back."

Baxley said that if people have the clear right to defend themselves without having to worry about legal consequences, criminals will think twice.

Opponents feared the bill would make Florida resemble the wild West, but defenders say it is no different from what most other states allow in laws governing self-defense.

The bill says a person has "the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so, to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another."

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 13:27
fa-q, someone's got to say it: your state and country are a F**king freakshow and you should all have your guns shoved up your respective arses. so f**king rich and so f**king stupid.

you fu**ing hicks make chechnya look like the height of civilisation!



<<Ned are you looking to get banned from this forum? Mod>>

veejay
07-04-2005, 13:29
amen, ned....why do you think some of us are hiding out over here...?

Sidney Bliss
07-04-2005, 13:32
I have no idea what you're talking about Ned but the swearing impressed me like nobody's business.

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 13:34
it felt good too. kind of like your tight fit i guess!

Shatneresque
07-04-2005, 13:42
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
<<Ned are you looking to get banned from this forum? Mod>>
You forgot to bleep "arses"! :eek:

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 13:49
Originally posted by Shatneresque
You forgot to bleep "arses"! :eek:

the problem with american moderators!

sfjohns67
07-04-2005, 14:23
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
you should all have your guns shoved up your respective arses. Are you threatening me, you big mean orange sweater-wearing brutus?

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 14:26
you like the imagery don't you?!?

sfjohns67
07-04-2005, 14:31
It had me awash in the very fluids of preliminary lust, and your use of the eff-word was downright traileresque.

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 14:36
the old orange sweater-wearing rectum-violating fetish! sorry chaps, you know i love you. i just get upset when i read arguments about guns improving personal safety. they seem reminiscent to ones about the earth being flat.

sfjohns67
07-04-2005, 14:43
Re-read the article, tough guy...it says "use of deadly force to prevent bodily harm to himself" only, nothing linking that exclusively to a gun. Which means I can whack you with the fender from one of the 5 cars sitting up on blocks in my front yard, kill you, and all I have to prove in a court of law is that you coming by four days in a row to try and sell me tulip bulbs constituted a viable threat to my personal safety.

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 14:46
Originally posted by sfjohns67
Which means I can whack you with the fender from one of the 5 cars sitting up on blocks in my front yard,

yes, but at least i get in at least 10 bald jokes while you were at it. with a gun i wouldn't even get a chance to say anything, which in my case would constitute genuine pain.

and it's sponsored by the nra.

joners66
07-04-2005, 14:46
Allegedly the country with the highest gun ownership is Switzerland, everybody has to join the army and everybody gets to keep their gun at home when their tour of duty is over, as technically they never leave the army. So every household has at least one gun.
The point is they dont do 'drive-by' shootings, shoot up school kids or rob liquor stores at gun point...............So maybe not guns but culture is the problem.....
We have an increasing gun related crime rate in the UK and the police dont usually carry them. The question is a bit deeper than should we have them or not, more of 'spot the psycopath'.

Cherokee
07-04-2005, 14:46
Well when you look at the original historical person "Ned Kelly" he had a great love for guns and even invented the first "bullet proof" protection from iron...well it didnt help him. He got shot at the end!

Fa-Q!
07-04-2005, 14:47
Yeah, Ned. I guess I wouldn't feel much safer in downtown Atlanta with a pistol on my front seat....Guess I'd agree with you had guns never been introduced to the society, but, to be honest with you, f'n Leroy's got a Mac-10 and he's high on crack and he likes the idea of rollin' in my Lexus. Not scary at all, Leroy done finished 8 grades of school and can even write his name! Only thing is, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with 30 rounds outta that Mac-10. Bubba'll bust one right between his eyes after downing a fifth of Beam. Then there's lil' ol' me. Bubba and Leroy both scare the s**t outta me.

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 14:50
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
Yeah, Ned. I guess I wouldn't feel much safer in downtown Atlanta with a pistol on my front seat....Guess I'd agree with you had guns never been introduced to the society, but, to be honest with you, f'n Leroy's got a Mac-10 and he's high on crack and he likes the idea of rollin' in my Lexus. Not scary at all, Leroy done finished 8 grades of school and can even write his name! Only thing is, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with 30 rounds outta that Mac-10. Bubba'll bust one right between his eyes after downing a fifth of Beam. Then there's lil' ol' me. Bubba and Leroy both scare the s**t outta me.

man, the english are more violent than you , and more stupid, and they managed to get guns out of society.

Cherokee
07-04-2005, 14:50
Originally posted by joners66
Allegedly the country with the highest gun ownership is Switzerland, everybody has to join the army and everybody gets to keep their gun at home when their tour of duty is over, as technically they never leave the army. So every household has at least one gun.

Not only that Joners: when they leave the army, they can keep their rifles! In fact, I read the other day, that in some case, when a great amount of soldiers retire and leave base with their rifles, they had been gun-dealers waitiing for them on the street to buy the rifles from them!

sfjohns67
07-04-2005, 14:51
Kill 'em all, let Fa-Q sort 'em out. And let Ned paste little smiley-face stickies on their asses.

Shatneresque
07-04-2005, 14:56
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
Leroy done finished 8 grades of school and can even write his name! Only thing is, he couldn't hit the broad side of a barn with 30 rounds outta that Mac-10. Bubba'll bust one right between his eyes after downing a fifth of Beam.
Knock it off! You're making me homesick.... :(

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 14:58
the more i read about america the more boring russia seems.

boscoe
07-04-2005, 15:12
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
man, the english are more violent than you , and more stupid, and they managed to get guns out of society.

OY! keep us stupid buggers out of this!

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 15:22
transatlantic friendship:
http://www.miniclip.com/bushrr.htm
it's been keeping me going on a slow day.

Fa-Q!
07-04-2005, 15:53
That site really sucks, Ned. Why don't you go weave a basket or find a tree to hug?:D

joners66
07-04-2005, 16:06
TALLAHASSEE, Florida (AP) -- Gov. Jeb Bush said Tuesday he intends to sign a bill that would allow people who feel threatened -- even on the street or at a baseball game -- to "meet force with force" and defend themselves without fear of prosecution.


Was that the day that Billy Joe Mcallister jumped of the Tallahasse bridge??

Shatneresque
07-04-2005, 16:12
Originally posted by joners66
Was that the day that Billy Joe Mcallister jumped of the Tallahasse bridge??
That was the Tallahatchee Bridge, in Mississippi.

"T'was the third of June,
Another sleepy, dusty, delta day.
I was out choppin' cotton,
And my brother was balin' hay...."

Bobbie Gentry. 19 ... 69?

Polia Ivanova
07-04-2005, 16:51
Personally I think that people trust too much what 1st of April newspapers say.

Look what they wrote about us...

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/050401/17/ffg2g.html

Black day as EU fools with place names
EUROPEAN bureaucrats will push forward legislation today to force the Scottish Executive to change place-names that offend or discriminate on the grounds of race and gender.

In a move the Nationalists described as the "ultimate madness in political correctness", it has taken only a quorum of four Euro commissioners from Italy, Germany, France and Spain to redraw Scotland's map.

The German commissioner, Arlo Pilof, the architect of the 2006 Race and Gender Equality Imposition Code (conformity), an amendment to existing rules, said: "We believe many names do not conform, and we started with Scotland because it is the worst of the culprits with offensive names such as Skinflats, near Grangemouth."

However, he promised the Scottish Executive could apply for grants of up to €43.6 million (£28 million) to facilitate change.

That was dismissed yesterday by the Scottish Chambers of Commerce as a "drop in the ocean". A spokesman said: "Changing stationery and business cards could cost that alone."

The commissioners in Brussels have demanded "race and gender-sensitive" names found for towns such as Motherwell, Blackburn, Helensburgh, Fort William, Campbeltown, Peterhead, Lewis and Fraserburgh be changed.

A Scottish parliamentary group, set up in anticipation of the legislation, has made a start. Fort William, in the shadow of Britain's highest mountain, would become Fort Nevis by 2006, under one suggestion.

Edinburgh City Council is considering revising Arthur's Seat because the commissioners said its ancient name contained sexual undertones "likely to offend those visiting Edinburgh".

Under the new amendment the word "Glen" could be banned as gender-biased. Scotland Office officials have suggested a change to Vale, as in Valecoe and the Great Vale.

An SNP spokesperson said: "This is monstrous buffoonery, an outrageous waste of resources and politically correct madness.

"I understand, for example, that North Lanarkshire Council will consider plans to change Motherwell to Parentwell," the spokesperson said. "What is Dunbartonshire going to do with Helensburgh?"

Under European rules going back to 1986, a quorum of four member state commissioners have the right to table what is known as a "L.I.L Proof A", a prelude to any legislation which proposes to amend or remove a name or description "relating to a city, town or centre of habitation with more than eight people of voting age".

The four commissioners tabled the L.I.L Proof A in December and today the legislation will go before a committee of ten commissioners. It is expected to be law by 1 April, 2006.

The Scottish Executive had sought to win exemptions for places beginning with "Black", but the bureaucrats were adamant they were racist.

"We could hardly have places like Colouredford or the Coloured Isle, the Coloured Cuillins," said a spokesman.

However, the Executive has come up with an alternative, to revert to the Gaelic rendition of black - dubh - which it believes will be acceptable.

The spokesman added: "They won't know the difference, hopefully. And Burndubh and Dubhford don't sound too bad."

However, the greatest difficulty will be experienced by the producers of Ordnance Survey maps.

A spokesman said: "This is a nightmare, amending every map. I understand there will be a hiatus, where old maps are acceptable. But new maps will have to be in place by 2007.

"More cartographers will be needed and the process of re-tooling machines will begin next year.

"Inevitably, the cost will be high and prices will go up. We estimate, for example, a map such as the Landranger series for North Skye will retail at £94.20 by 2007."

Mr Pilof revealed that England would be next on the agenda, citing the Isle of Man as particularly worthy of change.

A Manx spokesman said yesterday: "I hope this is a long way off. We are two-time losers, what with the island's name and Douglas as the capital. It's ridiculous, isn't it?

"It's as if these people sat there all day and made up this stuff."

By: PAUL DRURY AND JIM MCBETH -- 01-Apr-05

CatGirl
07-04-2005, 17:36
Oh, guys... try to talk about smth peaceful..!

trebor
07-04-2005, 18:27
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
man, the english are more violent than you , and more stupid, and they managed to get guns out of society.

Right, and you Australians are still walking about with our Queen (may she long reign over us) on your bank notes.

Now,.................................. how f**king stupid is that?
LOL:D

joners66
07-04-2005, 18:31
Way to go Trebor!
But guess the notes would look pretty stupid with cross wallabies, a koala couchant and a bilabong under a koolybar tree................

trebor
07-04-2005, 18:37
Originally posted by joners66
Way to go Trebor!
But guess the notes would look pretty stupid with cross wallabies, a koala couchant and a bilabong under a koolybar tree................

I just love it when Australians start advising eveyone on how the world should be run when they havn't got the boll*cks or the knowhow to come out from behind mummy Lizzabets skirts!
LOL:)

yankee@moscow
07-04-2005, 18:44
I've owned a gun almost all of my life and never shot anyone. Most of my friends back in the states are in the same situation. Outside of high crime areas and big cities, guns are just another tool that Americans have grown up with. Normal, hard working people learn to respect them and treat them as the deadly weapon that they are, only to be used for hunting or personal/family protection. We don't think of guns as people do in other countries because we've been around them our whole lives. They aren't something use to threaten others unless you are a criminal.

I lived in DC for 2 years where guns are illegal to own. 3 people were murdered in the alley behind my building and numerous other murders took place in my neighborhood. I lived in Parkersburg, WV for 6 years where everyone owns guns and no one was murdered within walking distance to my house. Those are just the facts. You can make your own conclusions. I won't be so beligerant as the left side of this issue.

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 18:52
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
That site really sucks, Ned. Why don't you go weave a basket or find a tree to hug?:D

i thought you'd relate to the whole queen running around with a gun thing! :p

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 18:53
Originally posted by trebor
Now,.................................. how f**king stupid is that?
LOL:D

still not half as stupid as you sap-head; and stop laughing at your own jokes!

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 18:54
Originally posted by joners66
Way to go Trebor!
But guess the notes would look pretty stupid with cross wallabies, a koala couchant and a bilabong under a koolybar tree................

rich coming from a nong with a pyramid for an avatar!

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 18:55
Originally posted by trebor
I just love it when Australians start advising eveyone on how the world should be run when they havn't got the boll*cks or the knowhow to come out from behind mummy Lizzabets skirts!
LOL:)

what do they say in vladivostok when thy see you waltzing around in a skirt?!?

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 18:56
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
I've owned a gun almost all of my life and never shot anyone.

glad to hear it!

trebor
07-04-2005, 18:59
Ned,
Americans are Americans worts and all, Brits too.
Is Australia realy a country?
When you become one feel free to dish out the advice okay!
LOL:D

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 21:37
yankee, when i was younger i used to take a lot of drugs. i never stole from anyone to finance my use and never hurt anyone as a result. others do. based on your refined sense of personal responsibility (which i respect i might add), do you think all drugs should also be legalised?

in general, i can't bear reading about kids going into schools and comitting massacres. guns facilitate that (though i agree they are not the source) and sometimes society needs to move on. ways of life can change.

i am not a tree hugger. i think farmers should have guns and people should be able to hunt or go to ranges but guns should be kept under lock and key in the meantime. i don't pretend to understand america's fixaton with them but i also don't buy the arguments, especially nra-sponsored, in their defence. just my view of course.

yankee@moscow
07-04-2005, 21:44
Originally posted by Ned Kelly
yankee, when i was younger i used to take a lot of drugs. i never stole from anyone to finance my use and never hurt anyone as a result. others do. based on your refined sense of personal responsibility (which i respect i might add), do you think all drugs should also be legalised?

in general, i can't bear reading about kids going into schools and comitting massacres. guns facilitate that (though i agree they are not the source) and sometimes society needs to move on. ways of life can change.

i am not a tree hugger. i think farmers should have guns and people should be able to hunt or go to ranges but guns should be kept under lock and key in the meantime. i don't pretend to understand america's fixaton with them but i also don't buy the arguments, especially nra-sponsored, in their defence. just my view of course.


I'm not going to compare guns to drugs. Guns have always been legal in the United States, and for the most part, narcotics have always been illegal. It's not a good comparison. As a matter of fact, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right in the United States. That's how deeply engrained it is in our society. You are probably never going to understand it unless you move to the US and hang around with people who own guns, the kind of people that treat guns like they should be treated, or talk to someone face to face who lived through the night because they had a gun to protect themselves when a thief broke into their house. It's very cultural.

BTW, I won't make any obvious comments about you taking a lot of drugs. :p

Ned Kelly
07-04-2005, 21:55
i wasn't trying to compare it directly; i was trying to use the notion of personal responsibility. enough people don't have it with guns for terrible tragedies to happen and therefore, in my view, the situation needs to change.

i agree with you on the cultural thing in the us - and i don't get it. i watched a lot of people protesting in australia when they introduced very strict laws after martin bryant killed 35 people in tasmania. some were normal, some were whackos. but my sympathy was with the people who died or whose loved ones died from that nutter getting hold of a gun.

veejay
07-04-2005, 22:11
but why on earth are semi-automatic weapons included in the right to bear arms?

i grew up in an nra-card carrying family, learned to skeet shoot and target shoot at an early age with a 12-gage shotgun, have hunted (deer, turkey, pheasant and dove) and will never, ever allow a gun in my own home. i respect other's rights to own them, as long as they do so responsibly, and as long as they are sold responsibly, whatever that means. i am troubled by all the kids shooting kids in high schools outside of places like NYC and DC.

i'm an american, and i don't get it. our consitution was written at a time when we were fighting for freedom from another country. fine. but why on earth should semi-automatic weapons be sold? to any one outside the military? and how are kids getting these weapons, other than from their parents' gun cabinets? and why is our murder rate so incredibly high compared with other countries that have a much higher per capita gun ownership?

food for thought...i am a left-wing liberal freak...in case you'd forgotten...:-) but, i don't think these questions are necessarily all that left of centre...

J.D.
07-04-2005, 22:23
The right to bear arms comes as much from the idea that people need to protect themselves from the government as it comes from the idea of protecting the country from foreign invaders.

The militia is not the army
and it is not the reserves/national gaurd as some would have you believe
the militia is every man, woman and child
and would you care to venture a guess as to who can call out the militia?

trebor
07-04-2005, 22:29
Seems to me, that gun regs. in the states are a no brainer and like another big issue, health care.

Get rid of the guns. Provide affordable health care to all.

What are politicians for? and what's the F*cking problem?

J.D.
07-04-2005, 22:36
More people die in swimming pools in the US than are killed by guns.
Shouldn't we get rid of the swimming pools first?

yankee@moscow
07-04-2005, 22:40
This is the kind of idiot that would find a gun whether it was legal or not.......

Texas High School Football Coach Shot


CANTON, Texas - The father of a high school football player shot and wounded the team's coach with an assault rifle Thursday and fled in a pickup loaded with weapons, claiming to have a hit list, state officials said.

Schools in the district were locked down while police searched for the shooter. Officers had weapons drawn near a truck that was found about two hours after the shooting and apparently belonged to suspect Jeffrey Doyle Robertson.

Police were investigating a possible motive for Robertson, 45, in the shooting of Canton High School football coach Gary Joe Kinne. The coach was shot while on campus.

Police Chief Mike Echols said Robertson had been banned from campus and told not to attend school functions. Authorities had reports that the two had an "altercation" after Kinne took over the football program in 2003, said state Department of Public Safety officer Jasmine Andresen.

The state Office of Homeland Security said Robertson fired an AK-47 at Kinne at the school's field house before driving off. Robertson had said he had a hit list and would not be taken alive, agency spokeswoman Sophie Yanez said.

Kinne was shot in the chest, Echols told The Tyler Morning Telegraph. The coach was airlifted to a hospital in nearby Tyler, officials said. Authorities declined to release information on his condition.

Television footage showed officers with weapons drawn and police cars parked behind the truck near a golf course off Interstate 20 between Tyler and Canton. It was not clear whether anyone was in the truck.

An athlete's father said Robertson had threatened to kill his son last year over an on-field teasing.

"He's a very high-strung, hot-tempered individual," said Steve Smith, a Canton business owner.

Smith told the Tyler newspaper that Robertson's son, then a freshman football player, was walking off the field when some older students "razzed" him.

"This guy blew up," Smith said. "He thought some kids were picking on his son. My son wasn't even the one who said anything. But he threatened to kill him."

Smith said he complained to the school and police. Robertson was never charged.

A local restaurant cashier said Robertson had a reputation in Canton, about 60 miles east of Dallas.

"I wouldn't say he was respected. But he was well-known," said Sister's Cafe cashier Diane Price, who said she has known Robertson for 37 years because he attended high school with her daughter.

Kingwillhe
07-04-2005, 22:47
It's stories like that that make it hard to defend gun ownership, but here goes.

Canada doesn't have a gun culture per say (unless you live in Alberta), nor is ownership enshrined in our constitution...in fact we currently have a piece of legislation (driven by the Dec 6 1989 event, Mark Lepine kills 14 women at Ecole Polytechnique, University of Montreal, and injures 15 others) which will seriously curtail the ownership and use of all guns & ammunition through registration. Most Canucks like this, some don’t. I personally think it’s an expensive, unenforceable piece of legislation which will criminalize most gun owners. Guns will always be available…hell, I can make several different calibers out of scrap! And that was before the internet came into being. Restricting ammo will mean nothing, especially with all the native reservations on the US/Canada border. BC bud goes south, AR-15’s and Mac -10’s go north!

I grew up with rifles and pistols, was taught in their proper use and storage and having hunted for quite a while…I know full well what they can do!! Prior to coming here I had quite a nice collection as a matter of fact, including several semi & full auto assault weapons. I couldn’t actually use them much as the bark of such a beast has every cell phone within earshot calling the cops and it’s a safe bet you won’t get the thing home. It was the thrill of acquiring them that got me you see. AND…I never killed anyone!! See where I’m going with this?

Freaks Ned? Watching the Michael Jackson trial? Controversy brings that bunch out, just change the tee shirt.

veejay, agree, no reason to have semi or full auto.

JD, “driving” in some countries is considered a privilege, not a right, and can be revoked at any time. There is no history of entrenched rights regarding gun ownership outside of the US (I think!).

veejay
08-04-2005, 00:12
Originally posted by trebor
Seems to me, that gun regs. in the states are a no brainer and like another big issue, health care.

Get rid of the guns. Provide affordable health care to all.

What are politicians for? and what's the F*cking problem?
is it possible...? trebor...i couldn't agree with you more!!!

koba65
08-04-2005, 02:32
Originally posted by veejay
but why on earth are semi-automatic weapons included in the right to bear arms?

i grew up in an nra-card carrying family, learned to skeet shoot and target shoot at an early age with a 12-gage shotgun, have hunted (deer, turkey, pheasant and dove) and will never, ever allow a gun in my own home. i respect other's rights to own them, as long as they do so responsibly, and as long as they are sold responsibly, whatever that means. i am troubled by all the kids shooting kids in high schools outside of places like NYC and DC.

i'm an american, and i don't get it. our consitution was written at a time when we were fighting for freedom from another country. fine. but why on earth should semi-automatic weapons be sold? to any one outside the military? and how are kids getting these weapons, other than from their parents' gun cabinets? and why is our murder rate so incredibly high compared with other countries that have a much higher per capita gun ownership?

food for thought...i am a left-wing liberal freak...in case you'd forgotten...:-) but, i don't think these questions are necessarily all that left of centre...


Ahem, Veejay, our Constitution was written AFTER we defeated said invading country.... ;) And the 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms to defend yourself (property, family, etc) - weaponry has developed over the years and so has the threat.

Gun laws do not take guns off the streets. If they did there wouldn't be any gun crimes in the UK. If someone wants to committ mass murder, there are plenty of ways to get a hold of weapons ILLEGALLY. You don't really think that all of the gun crimes in the States are committed by people who have legally purchased weapons, do you?

Personally, I don't own a gun, never have (got enough of it in the Army) - BUT, where I live back in the States 'pert near everyone has a gun and crime is 'pert near down to ZERO. Why? Criminals are lazy cowards and would rather terrorize the undefended than risk confronting someone who is armed.

Also, you can kill as many people with a non-semi automatic weapon as you can with a semi-automatic. Actually, most professionals would not use full automatic unless laying down covering fire or defending against a "human wave." Auto is inaccurate and wastes ammo! The thugs who use them in the States (and elsewhere) get them (illegally) and use them because they think it's "manly." I blame gangsta rap and MTV....;)

J.D.
08-04-2005, 07:13
I agree that the US is probably the only country where 'the right' to gun ownership is entrenched. A review of British history will show why. Every time there was a crack down on weapon ownership, which always started with registration and shipping regulations, there immediately followed an oppression against the people by the government.

Personally I think that citizens should be able to own any type of weapon that the government has for use within the US.
People don't need automatic weapons. It is a weapon for mass indescriminate killing. Well the police don't need them either. And when the govenor calls out the national gaurd they should leave their automatic weapons, artillery and grenades in the armory.

veejay
08-04-2005, 09:07
Originally posted by koba65
Ahem, Veejay, our Constitution was written AFTER we defeated said invading country.... ;) And the 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms to defend yourself (property, family, etc) - weaponry has developed over the years and so has the threat.

Gun laws do not take guns off the streets. If they did there wouldn't be any gun crimes in the UK. If someone wants to committ mass murder, there are plenty of ways to get a hold of weapons ILLEGALLY. You don't really think that all of the gun crimes in the States are committed by people who have legally purchased weapons, do you?

Personally, I don't own a gun, never have (got enough of it in the Army) - BUT, where I live back in the States 'pert near everyone has a gun and crime is 'pert near down to ZERO. Why? Criminals are lazy cowards and would rather terrorize the undefended than risk confronting someone who is armed.

Also, you can kill as many people with a non-semi automatic weapon as you can with a semi-automatic. Actually, most professionals would not use full automatic unless laying down covering fire or defending against a "human wave." Auto is inaccurate and wastes ammo! The thugs who use them in the States (and elsewhere) get them (illegally) and use them because they think it's "manly." I blame gangsta rap and MTV....;)

please forgive the historical blunder, koba, in my previous post....

but, i always thought the 2nd amendment was not simply about the right to protect one's self, but also about the need to have citizens with arms to serve in militsia since we didn't technically have a standing army? not trying to split hairs...but, it seems now to be a bit dated since we have a huge military and police enforcement darn near everywhere...?

i understand your response in part, although not some of your points. that said, my point was it seems that kids -- that is, kids who do not live in the urban ghettos -- are getting hold of guns and not simply shotguns or pistols -- and shooting other kids. what's up with that?

also, your point about the UK....how many people a year are killed by gun crimes in the UK versus how many people are killed a year in the US? or compare Canada to the US?

and how on earth can you kill as many people with a semi-automatic as you can with a gun you have to re-load after 2 or 6 shots? it's been a while since i've shot a gun, but i seem to recall it taking a few minutes to reload? sure, if your unsuspecting targets are daft gits who don't know to get the heck out of dodge as you reload, shoot away? but with a semi, they have to get out of the way perty darn quick...?

J.D.
08-04-2005, 09:32
VeeJay
the argument about what the 2nd amendment was for has been going on for a while.
Some say it was because we didn't have a standing army
Some say it refers to the Reserves/National Gaurd
Some say it is so citizens can protect themselves, either from criminials, foriegn invaders or even our own government.

It is not, as some idiots in the NRA claim, so we can go hunting or have shooting competitions.
I think the NRA would gain a lot more credibility if they would TRULY support legislation for serious penalties for crimes committed with guns. If they would do that then I would probably join.

veejay
08-04-2005, 09:43
JD -- completely agree. I'm not sure that I would join the NRA...but, agreed about the 2nd amendment debate, and some idiotic claims made by NRA members...

Fa-Q!
08-04-2005, 09:48
I'll use a "hypothetical" situation here: some 17-18 year-old kids that I "knew" had a whole arsenal of pistols of all calibers(all stolen), the favorite of the craziest of them, being a chrome S&W .357 with a six-inch barrell. These kids loved to fight and lived in a beach area, the most popular spring break spot in the US for college kids. Gangster rap music was at it's peak and these kids didn't care about anything. There were many an instance when these pistols were brandished during altercations. Most of the time, these kids were drunk. It's a good thing none of those kids ever shot anyone!

J.D.
08-04-2005, 09:55
Fa-Q, I believe in self responsibility not babysitting. If people are adequately held accountable for their misdeeds I believe that misdeeds will be at a minimum.

As for your hypothetical situation, if you knew all of this and did not report these stolen weapons to the police then you were not being a responsible citizen
hypothetically that is.

Halyavshik
08-04-2005, 10:11
Originally posted by koba65
Ahem, Veejay, our Constitution was written AFTER we defeated said invading country.... ;) And the 2nd Amendment is about the right to bear arms to defend yourself (property, family, etc) - weaponry has developed over the years and so has the threat.

Gun laws do not take guns off the streets. If they did there wouldn't be any gun crimes in the UK. If someone wants to committ mass murder, there are plenty of ways to get a hold of weapons ILLEGALLY. You don't really think that all of the gun crimes in the States are committed by people who have legally purchased weapons, do you?

Personally, I don't own a gun, never have (got enough of it in the Army) - BUT, where I live back in the States 'pert near everyone has a gun and crime is 'pert near down to ZERO. Why? Criminals are lazy cowards and would rather terrorize the undefended than risk confronting someone who is armed.

Also, you can kill as many people with a non-semi automatic weapon as you can with a semi-automatic. Actually, most professionals would not use full automatic unless laying down covering fire or defending against a "human wave." Auto is inaccurate and wastes ammo! The thugs who use them in the States (and elsewhere) get them (illegally) and use them because they think it's "manly." I blame gangsta rap and MTV....;)

I disagree, Koba. Gun laws DO take guns off the street. Where do the guns come from ? No, they're not purchased legally. They were stolen from someone who purchased them legally.

The UK, Australia, New Zealand ? All had under a 100 firearm fatalities last year. That's right, under 100. UK had 81 last year. So those "ILLEGALY" obtained firearms you refer to in the UK ? Not very many. Koba, I'm sure you've got a good idea on the amount of US firearm deaths. Anyone else wanna hazard a guess ? About 40,000. God Bless America. Food for thought.

As for the Second Amendment, to this day, as I'm sure you've heard, linguists and scholars (both leftwing and rightwing) debate the phrasing of it. Many believe the wording is purposely ambiguous, but many others believe that the initial "militia" clause means the right to bear arms refers ONLY to those in the militia. But let's for a second, then, say they're wrong. We're all allowed to bear 'arms'. So why do we outlaw grenade launchers ? Shouldn't the NRA be fighting for my right to carry a bazooka to work ?

I dunno 'bout all the cowardly criminals in your town, but in my town (and the rest of the US) there's a greater likelihood of a shooting accident during a robbery when the home-owner is armed. In the instances where there is a shooting, more than half of the time, the victem is the home-owner his/herself. Hmm. Doesn't look so good anymore.

Last, what I don't get is the primitive need for violence. We're thinking, rational human beings capable of expressing ourselves without violence or seeing who's "gun" (this is my firearm, this is my gun...) is bigger and shoots more. We might not be able to eliminate all violence, but it's pretty clear that gun control laws (or, gun banning laws) go a long way towards reaching that goal.

Oh, and one more statistic. Not to do with defense or someone's right to put holes in a coke can. How 'bout suicide ? Here's an interesting quote from the New England Journal of Medicine:

"According to a study of California handgun buyers published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. The study, which followed 238,292 people who bought a handgun in California in 1991, found that men were four times more likely to commit suicide in the year after they purchased a handgun than men in general. Women, who bought just 12 percent of guns in California, faced a suicide risk 16 times higher than the rest of the female population during the first year of gun ownership, the study found. The report found that higher suicide risk persists for at least six years after a gun is bought."

Fa-Q!
08-04-2005, 10:15
The point here is that crazy drunken teenage kids mesmerized by violent lyrics of gangster rap and the thought of "busting a cap in somebody's ass" shouldn't be considered socially responsible. One of my classmates murdered another classmate, it wasn't with a gun, though, but with a kitchen knife and it stemmed from a small argument. Kid went home, got a knife, went back to the scene and stuck it in the other kid's back. BTW, he got off on self-defense!

Fa-Q!
08-04-2005, 10:19
Very good point about suicide, Hal. Very good point. It takes a seriously bent person to cut an inch deep into their wrist, but it only takes half a second to paint the wall with you brains and I bet it don't hurt too bad.

J.D.
08-04-2005, 10:19
Hal, I think that even Sam Clemons would be stunned by your use of statistics.

Lled
08-04-2005, 10:56
Say a prohibition on guns for citizens is declared - following precisely the same draconian enforcement thereof that was used for alcohol prohibition back then, you'd raid every dive that looks suspect, eavesdrop, follow, beat up anyone involved with guns or who might be involved in guns - hey, it's illegal right - and you would weed out all criminal procuration. get Bruce Willis onto the problem even.

If the citizens feel they're being poorly treated by the government, just don't vote them back in. Is there really this wildly purile fear in the U.S. that if they take away my guns I'm gonna get oppressed? You feel oppressed then you go get you some guns from somewhere, beat up a soldier, get creative. Get over the paranoia. If you fear the government you are under, then you know where to look first.

Bottom line is you just don't have to have guns. We have got hardly any in the UK and, surprise, we're still a democracy and not too many people get shot to hell in comparison...

koba65
08-04-2005, 12:30
Originally posted by Halyavshik
I disagree, Koba. Gun laws DO take guns off the street. Where do the guns come from ? No, they're not purchased legally. They were stolen from someone who purchased them legally.

The UK, Australia, New Zealand ? All had under a 100 firearm fatalities last year. That's right, under 100. UK had 81 last year. So those "ILLEGALY" obtained firearms you refer to in the UK ? Not very many. Koba, I'm sure you've got a good idea on the amount of US firearm deaths. Anyone else wanna hazard a guess ? About 40,000. God Bless America. Food for thought.

As for the Second Amendment, to this day, as I'm sure you've heard, linguists and scholars (both leftwing and rightwing) debate the phrasing of it. Many believe the wording is purposely ambiguous, but many others believe that the initial "militia" clause means the right to bear arms refers ONLY to those in the militia. But let's for a second, then, say they're wrong. We're all allowed to bear 'arms'. So why do we outlaw grenade launchers ? Shouldn't the NRA be fighting for my right to carry a bazooka to work ?

I dunno 'bout all the cowardly criminals in your town, but in my town (and the rest of the US) there's a greater likelihood of a shooting accident during a robbery when the home-owner is armed. In the instances where there is a shooting, more than half of the time, the victem is the home-owner his/herself. Hmm. Doesn't look so good anymore.

Last, what I don't get is the primitive need for violence. We're thinking, rational human beings capable of expressing ourselves without violence or seeing who's "gun" (this is my firearm, this is my gun...) is bigger and shoots more. We might not be able to eliminate all violence, but it's pretty clear that gun control laws (or, gun banning laws) go a long way towards reaching that goal.

Oh, and one more statistic. Not to do with defense or someone's right to put holes in a coke can. How 'bout suicide ? Here's an interesting quote from the New England Journal of Medicine:

"According to a study of California handgun buyers published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine. The study, which followed 238,292 people who bought a handgun in California in 1991, found that men were four times more likely to commit suicide in the year after they purchased a handgun than men in general. Women, who bought just 12 percent of guns in California, faced a suicide risk 16 times higher than the rest of the female population during the first year of gun ownership, the study found. The report found that higher suicide risk persists for at least six years after a gun is bought."

Hal, my time today is limited, but I'll leave you with this:

"According to the National Council on Alcohol and Drug Dependency, 105,000 Americans die annually from alcohol-related causes which could include everything from falls to drunk driving accidents to cirrhosis of the liver. For comparison sake, there are 365,000 tobacco-related deaths in the U.S. each year."

I expect to see your call for banning and/or placing stricter control on alcohol and tobacco. And, we should ban cars as well, since the majority of violent crimes committed with a vehicle (bank robberies, etc) are done in STOLEN vehicles - just like those stolen guns.

Perhaps we should also ban violent films (like "Lichnyj Nomer" ;) ), because it adds to the glorification of the "gun" and numbs the younger generation to violence - leading to their willingness to resort to violent methods of conflict resolution?

Halyavshik
08-04-2005, 12:50
Koba,

The underlying problem with that comparison is that neither alcohol nor cars are INTENDED to kill people (or threaten someone with being killed). Aside from cigarettes (which, judging by recent outdoor smoking laws, don't appear to be too far away from becoming illegal), guns are the only product sold publicly which cause death if actually used as they were intended. Cars, knives, swimming pools, etc, all have useful purposes not intended to inflict or threaten the loss of life. Heck, I could stab someone with a pen or nailfile , but I hope you're not advocating banning writing and good hygene just to prove that guns shouldn't be.

You can argue that you don't intend to use the gun (and just keep it to intimidate), but then you come back to the statistics above, which I'll cite more specifically here again:

"a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder" (New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, pp1557-60).

"The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death" (Scientific American, vol. 265, p48).

And, let's not forget that alcohol and cars ARE regulated by underage drinking laws, drivers' licenses, seatbelts, airbags, public inebriation laws, etc, etc, etc.

See you at the next pro gun-control rally !

koba65
08-04-2005, 13:02
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Koba,

The underlying problem with that comparison is that neither alcohol nor cars are INTENDED to kill people (or threaten someone with being killed). Aside from cigarettes (which, judging by recent outdoor smoking laws, don't appear to be too far away from becoming illegal), guns are the only product sold publicly which cause death if actually used as they were intended. Cars, knives, swimming pools, etc, all have useful purposes not intended to inflict or threaten the loss of life. Heck, I could stab someone with a pen or nailfile , but I hope you're not advocating banning writing and good hygene just to prove that guns shouldn't be.

You can argue that you don't intend to use the gun (and just keep it to intimidate), but then you come back to the statistics above, which I'll cite more specifically here again:

"a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder" (New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, pp1557-60).

"The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death" (Scientific American, vol. 265, p48).

And, let's not forget that alcohol and cars ARE regulated by underage drinking laws, drivers' licenses, seatbelts, airbags, public inebriation laws, etc, etc, etc.

See you at the next pro gun-control rally !

Guns aren't necessarily purchased to KILL - that's ridiculous - lot's of sport and game hunters, gun collectors, target shooting, etc. I guess I could say alcohol is soley purchased in order to get f&&ked up, which can lead to violence if the WRONG people use it...

Here are more statistics for ya:

"States with right-to-carry laws have lower overall violent crime rates, compared to states without right-to-carry laws. In states whose laws respect the citizen's right-to-carry guns for self defense the total violent crime is 13% lower, homicide is 3% lower, robbery is 26% lower and aggravated assault is 7% lower. (Data: Crime in the United States 1996, FBI Uniform Crime Reports)

Right-to-carry license holders are more law-abiding than the general public. In Florida, for example, the firearm crime rate among license holders, annually averaging only several crimes per 100,000 licensees, is a fraction of the rate for the state as a whole. Since the carry law went into effect in 1987, less than 0.02% of Florida carry permits have been revoked because of gun crimes committed by license holders. (Florida Dept. of State) Research reports printed in "More Guns, Less Crime", John R. Lott, Jr., the John M. Olin Visiting Law and Economics Fellow at the University of Chicago, examined data ranging from gun ownership polls to FBI crime rate data for each of the nation's 3.045 counties over a 1977 too 1994 time span. Lott's research amounts to the largest data set that has ever been put together for any study of crime, let alone for the study of gun control. Among Prof. Lott's findings:

• While arrest and conviction rates being the most important factors influencing crime.... non discretionary concealed-handgun laws are also important, and they are the most cost-effective means of reducing crime.

• Non discretionary or "shall-issue" carry permit laws reduce violent crime for two reasons. They reduce the number of attempted crimes because criminals can't tell which potential victims are armed, being able to defend themselves. Secondly, victims who do have guns are in a much better position to defend themselves. Concealed carry laws deter crime because they increase the criminal's risk of doing business.

• States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest decreases in violent crime. And, it is high crime, urban areas, and neighborhoods with large minority populations that experience the greatest reductions in violent crime when law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry concealed handguns.

• There is a strong relationship between the number of law-abiding citizens with permits and the crime rate--as more people obtain permits there is a greater decline in violent crime rates.

• For each additional year that a concealed handgun law is in effect the murder rate declines by 3%, rape by 2% and robberies by more than 2%.

• Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but the effect is especially pronounced for women. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the rate for men.

• The benefits of concealed handguns are not limited to those who carry them. Others get a free ride from the crime fighting efforts of their fellow citizens.

• The benefits of right-to-carry are not limited to people who share the characteristics of those who carry the guns. The most obvious example of this "halo" effect, is the drop in murders of children following the adoption of non discretionary laws. Arming older people not only may provide direct protection to these children, but also causes criminals to leave the area.

• The increased presence of concealed handguns "does not raise the number of accidental deaths or suicides from handguns."
"
From an Arizona site on registering guns, etc.

Halyavshik
08-04-2005, 13:51
I can show or collect guns, but then, I'm not using them, am I ? You're 'using' it when you fire it. If I 'use' a bottle of alcohol if I open it and take a drink. And, sure, you can argue that you can shoot beer bottles off the wall, but I hope the anti-gun control lobby and NRA aren't spending billions of dollars to fight for your right to break glass from a distance when it's 43 times more likely you'll shoot a friend or relative than an intruder.

As for Lott, Koba, c'mon, he's been debunked as inherently flawed by both criminologists and statisticians. He used inconsistant source data, ignored gun-control laws passed at the same time as "shall carry" laws and used arrest rates (not conviction rates) for statistics. There's currently no accepted evidence that "shall carry" laws (as Lott describes them) have any effect on crime-rates, which is to say they don't increase it either, but that puts us back to square one:

That the US has the higest per-capita gun fatality rate in the world, and there's no clear evidence that the second amendment ever intended for the average citizen to maintain an arm which increased the likelihood of a gun-related fatality.

yankee@moscow
08-04-2005, 15:09
Originally posted by Halyavshik
I can show or collect guns, but then, I'm not using them, am I ? You're 'using' it when you fire it. If I 'use' a bottle of alcohol if I open it and take a drink. And, sure, you can argue that you can shoot beer bottles off the wall, but I hope the anti-gun control lobby and NRA aren't spending billions of dollars to fight for your right to break glass from a distance when it's 43 times more likely you'll shoot a friend or relative than an intruder.



I for one HAVE used a gun in the case of a break in. I didn't even have to fire. He ran out of my house so fast that I couldn't have shot him if I had to. Hearing me didn't scare him, and neither did my announcement that I was coming after him, but hearing the unmistakable sound made by inserting the clip into a Smith and Wesson 10 MM pistol and hearing me cock it certainly sent the intruder on his way. What would you have done? Karate chop him? There is no honor in taking second place in that scenario. It's live or die, and I lived.

Would making guns illegal have helped me? No, because criminals will still have guns. They break the law. They are criminals. That's what they do. You can philosophize all you want, but when you live through a scenario like that, all the philosophy in the world doesn't make a bit of difference. Would I have shot the intruder? IN A HEARTBEAT!

Fa-Q!
08-04-2005, 15:12
I'm with you, yankee. "Go ahead! Make my day!"

koba65
08-04-2005, 15:15
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
I'm not going to compare guns to drugs. Guns have always been legal in the United States, and for the most part, narcotics have always been illegal. It's not a good comparison. As a matter of fact, the right to bear arms is a constitutional right in the United States. That's how deeply engrained it is in our society. You are probably never going to understand it unless you move to the US and hang around with people who own guns, the kind of people that treat guns like they should be treated, or talk to someone face to face who lived through the night because they had a gun to protect themselves when a thief broke into their house. It's very cultural.

BTW, I won't make any obvious comments about you taking a lot of drugs. :p

Hal,
Drugs have not always been illegal. Tell me the original ingredients for coca-cola - the legal opium dens (shut down because of the impact on society), marijuana was not allowed until the 30s. Besides, we tried Prohibition and it only enriched people willing to break the law (Kennedy Clan, anyone) and people still got drunk. Banning guns will not get rid of them - except only the bad guys will have them. It is a FACT that in states where concealed carry is allowed crime has been reduced - I'll dig up the stats from the FBI site when I have a chance. I don't know about the area you live in with people killing themselves and having accidents, but in my state kids are taught from an earlier age to respect guns - they even get the first day of deer hunting season off from school. I don't own a gun because I will never live in an area that I would need to feel safe by having a firearm.

It's not the guns, it's the bs mentality that violence is cool and sexy. You want to stop the gun violence tell the anti-Gun lobby in Hollywood to stop promoting violent films and violent music videos and computer games. It numbs the kids to the violence and they think it's cool to be a gangsta. Add to that the irresponsible parents who are so f**king lazy that they use the TV and computer as a babysitter and you have a disaster. These are same ones who also leave loaded weapons around when they have small children. My dad had a few handguns when I was growing up and I didn't go near them. He would have kicked my ass and that message was clear.

Watch Europe, as the influence of Hollywood violence increases so does their violent crime.

I also remember reading in the Russian press about the bad influence "Brigada" had on kids. More kids were becoming violent and admitted to crimes because they were influenced by "Brigda's" romantic version of gang life.

Halyavshik
08-04-2005, 15:15
Yankee,

Perhaps you didn't read higher up. It's not philosophizing. It's fact. There's a higher chance of YOU having an accident than an intruder: "The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death" (Scientific American, vol. 265, p48).


That you would shoot someone ? How sad.

koba65
08-04-2005, 15:19
Originally posted by veejay
please forgive the historical blunder, koba, in my previous post....

but, i always thought the 2nd amendment was not simply about the right to protect one's self, but also about the need to have citizens with arms to serve in militsia since we didn't technically have a standing army? not trying to split hairs...but, it seems now to be a bit dated since we have a huge military and police enforcement darn near everywhere...?

i understand your response in part, although not some of your points. that said, my point was it seems that kids -- that is, kids who do not live in the urban ghettos -- are getting hold of guns and not simply shotguns or pistols -- and shooting other kids. what's up with that?

also, your point about the UK....how many people a year are killed by gun crimes in the UK versus how many people are killed a year in the US? or compare Canada to the US?

and how on earth can you kill as many people with a semi-automatic as you can with a gun you have to re-load after 2 or 6 shots? it's been a while since i've shot a gun, but i seem to recall it taking a few minutes to reload? sure, if your unsuspecting targets are daft gits who don't know to get the heck out of dodge as you reload, shoot away? but with a semi, they have to get out of the way perty darn quick...?

I could kill more with a weapon requiring frequent reloading than with a fully automatic - why? More accuracy. Fully automatic is mainly used for supressing fire. We only use in the Army for such activities. Actually, I only had my weapon on full auto, maybe 3 times and that was for training purposes.

Few minutes to re-load? Were you using a muzzle loader from Davey Crockett times? ;)

Fa-Q!
08-04-2005, 15:20
I'll tell you that there's a much higher chance of be blowing a hole in someone than shooting myself while cleaning my gun. You can show me all the stats in the world, but it won't change the fact that I'm a crazy m.f. without a felony record and I've got a bad-ass temper and can't fight worth a s**t. With a mouth like mine, highly likely I'd get a good ass-beating, go home in a rage, get my pistol and come back like f*****g Desperado to get some good ol' fashioned revenge.

koba65
08-04-2005, 15:21
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Yankee,

Perhaps you didn't read higher up. It's not philosophizing. It's fact. There's a higher chance of YOU having an accident than an intruder: "The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death" (Scientific American, vol. 265, p48).


That you would shoot someone ? How sad.

Hal,
That's because people who do die in such instances are not trained properly on the use of a gun. In such instances if you pull out a gun you better be willing and able to use it.

What's sad is that someone would have to resort to defending themselves in their own homes.

koba65
08-04-2005, 15:22
Originally posted by Fa-Q!
I'll tell you that there's a much higher chance of be blowing a hole in someone than shooting myself while cleaning my gun. You can show me all the stats in the world, but it won't change the fact that I'm a crazy m.f. without a felony record and I've got a bad-*** temper and can't fight worth a ****. With a mouth like mine, highly likely I'd get a good ***-beating, go home in a rage, get my pistol and come back like ******* Desperado to get some good ol' fashioned revenge.

So, you probably shouldn't be driving a car as well?

Halyavshik
08-04-2005, 15:29
Originally posted by koba65
It is a FACT that in states where concealed carry is allowed crime has been reduced - I'll dig up the stats from the FBI site when I have a chance. I don't know about the area you live in with people killing themselves and having accidents, but in my state kids are taught from an earlier age to respect guns

Koba, 360,000 less guns sold in America is 360,000 less guns available to criminals. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Those that do make their way in are twenty times more expensive. It's simple economics.

YEah, drugs were legal, and now they're not. Hopefully we'll see a day when guns are illegal too.

And it's not a fact, Koba, that lower crime rates are BECAUSE of "shall carry" laws. Lott and Mustard were caught with coding errors in their findings that actually show an INCREASE in crime with "shall carry" laws. There are publications out there to discredit that statistic which use legitimate controls for gun-control laws (which Lott didn't). To date, there's been no definitive report proving any relation between a decrease in crime rates and "shall carry" laws.

But again, what does it matter, you can point to crime increases or decreases in Europe, or Australia, or the US, but the fact of the matter, and there's no dispute about it, that per capita gun fatalities elsewhere are fractions of what they are in the US.

It's sad that we need to defend something intended to be so dangerous and so ambiguously defined in a constitution 220 years ago. Sad that we are so callous as to say "I'd shoot 'em!" and show so little disregard for human life. Sad, that we're so ready to kill and depend on something so terribly violent.

Fa-Q!
08-04-2005, 15:34
Originally posted by koba65
So, you probably shouldn't be driving a car as well?
Hell, I shouldn't be allowed to walk amongst the normal members of society!

Halyavshik
08-04-2005, 15:36
Originally posted by koba65
That's because people who do die in such instances are not trained properly on the use of a gun. In such instances if you pull out a gun you better be willing and able to use it.
Again, so with no evidence showing that guns deter crime, and a lot to suggest that they don't, we're willing to lobby with billions of dollars to keep something designed to kill or threaten to kill AND train people to use it ? Fantastic. Let's give everyone a weapon and tell them how to best use it too. Am I missing something here ?


Originally posted by koba65
What's sad is that someone would have to resort to defending themselves in their own homes.
Kobster, it's sad that we regard this as an offense worthy of eliminating human life. I'd give away my possessions and whatever I have before robbing someone of their life.

Fa-Q!
08-04-2005, 15:39
BTW, I was joking. I wouldn't like to shoot anyone. just screwing aroung, but since you guys are so serious, felt the need to clarify.
It'd be really nice if there was no need for guns. Fact is, there are so many of them, that one pretty much needs one to feel safe anymore. I don't know how it is where you're from, Hal, but it's pretty rough where I'm from and you'd probably own a gun if you lived there.

Cherokee
08-04-2005, 15:44
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Halyavshik
[B]Yankee, There's a higher chance of YOU having an accident than an intruder: "The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death" (Scientific American, vol. 265, p48).

In General, I would agree to your comment Hal but I would like to add the thought, that is always a matter WHO is having a gun at home and WHY. Its most definate, that a parnoid feared person who thinks a gun would help him in case of facing an intruder, would create a problem when trying to resist a violent assault. Same applies in my opinion, when "gun-crazy" people have guns at home "playing" around with them showing them to visitors "look: how cool... my guns..." and that kind of thing! I have seen guys in the US who had shotguns and big revolvers lying loaded and unsecured under their bed. Sure this can easyly lead to injury and death!

To me the key is a persons attitude towards guns. If someone owns guns, he should be proper trained with them and I am not talking about the monthly visit at the shooting range. If someone wants to own a gun for personal protect, he should learn how to use the gun in case of stress or threat! Just to own that weapon doesnt mean, he can use it properly in such a case.

As a sidenote to other postings: I dont agree, that banning guns from the street will bring down the amount of illegal weapons because as stated, the bad guys steel those guns from the legal weapon owners. Look what happend in the UK after the weapons bann got executed: There are still alot of illegal guns circulating in the criminal scene. But those guns do not come from legal owners for sure!

Myself, I am a legal weapon owner over 20years and having Law Enforcement background I do know the statics too. As a German citizen I had to deal with German weapon laws, which are by far the hardest laws in Europe not to say in the world. A legal weapon owner in Germany for example has to go through so many security checks, before he can even get a permid to buy a gun and once he has it, there are tough restrictions and regulations how to keep, use and store a gun.or ammo These days it is almost impossible to legally own a gun in Germany and still, there are many illegal guns available in the scene.

As a summary I like to add, that I keep my guns locked in a safe and never take them out unless I need to. No show-off, playing or that sort of thing. With Law Enforcement background and intensive assault and combat shooting training, I have a very sober relationship to guns. If I had to face an assault, I would sure use them in approbriate way, to protect myself - and I did this several times in my life - but always in a way, that my actions would be covered by self-defense laws!

yankee@moscow
08-04-2005, 16:11
Originally posted by Cherokee
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Halyavshik
[B]

In General, I would agree to your comment Hal but I would like to add the thought, that is always a matter WHO is having a gun at home and WHY. Its most definate, that a parnoid feared person who thinks a gun would help him in case of facing an intruder, would create a problem when trying to resist a violent assault. Same applies in my opinion, when "gun-crazy" people have guns at home "playing" around with them showing them to visitors "look: how cool... my guns..." and that kind of thing! I have seen guys in the US who had shotguns and big revolvers lying loaded and unsecured under their bed. Sure this can easyly lead to injury and death!

To me the key is a persons attitude towards guns. If someone owns guns, he should be proper trained with them and I am not talking about the monthly visit at the shooting range. If someone wants to own a gun for personal protect, he should learn how to use the gun in case of stress or threat! Just to own that weapon doesnt mean, he can use it properly in such a case.


That's the difference. I understand guns, can take them apart and reassemble them, and know how and when to use one. My guns come out of hiding for 5 reasons:

1) cleaning
2) target shooting
3) hunting
4) self defense
5) to sell them

I would never draw a gun on someone unless I already had my mind made up that I was going to use it. In that instance, hesitation is deadly. I gave the intruder in my house a chance to leave, and he took it. If he wouldn't have, I would have shot to kill. I already had my mind made up.

You can talk about this stuff all you want, but until you've been in the situation, you don't know what you'd do.

Some of you criticize me for being willing to kill someone instead of letting them kill me. You should take a good look at yourselves in the mirror and ask yourself what you would really do. If I thought like that, I may not be here right now.

I don't ever want to kill anyone. I think it's wrong to even contemplate it, but when it's your life or their life, I think the choice is clear. If you want to die because you don't believe in having a gun in the house, that's your choice, but why should your beliefs dictate how the rest of us live inside our own homes?

Cherokee
08-04-2005, 16:22
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
...I don't ever want to kill anyone. I think it's wrong to even contemplate it, but when it's your life or their life, I think the choice is clear. If you want to die because you don't believe in having a gun in the house, that's your choice, but why should your beliefs dictate how the rest of us live inside our own homes?

Yep yankee 2thumbs up! Fully agree with your post! As for me, I was always trained how to defend myself in a combat or assault situation and you bet, I will protect myself, if some1 points a gun at me. I would never throw the first stone, but if some1 throws stones at me, he must face my actions in return! I would also never break in somebodys house. But if some1 doesn`t respect my property I will sure not tell him "go ahead buddy...help yourself! If some1 doesnt believe in having guns, fair enough. I would not point my finger at him. In return he/she should accept my way of living too!

Btw: do you do any hunting in RF?

Cherokee
08-04-2005, 16:40
[QUOTE][i]I would never draw a gun on someone unless I already had my mind made up that I was going to use it. In that instance, hesitation is deadly. I gave the intruder in my house a chance to leave, and he took it. If he wouldn't have, I would have shot to kill. I already had my mind made up.

Pointing a gun at somebody is not very nice but neither is breaking into people's homes. Furthermore, use of any less effective means of self-defense plays into the hands of the criminal. That isn't noble, merely stupid.

Fortunately, most burglars won't dare to loiter once they realize that they have been spotted. They are in for the easy pickings and not for ending up between armed homeowners on one side and police on the other. On the other hand, if they suspect that the residents are not armed, they would attack at once to prevent a call for help.

If a person must fire on an intruder, she would be doing so only in order to protect lives of self and dependents. Not to punish, not to discourage criminal behavior but to save lives from a predator.

yankee@moscow
08-04-2005, 17:03
Originally posted by Cherokee


Btw: do you do any hunting in RF?

Not yet, but eventually I'd like to. You?

Cherokee
08-04-2005, 18:03
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Not yet, but eventually I'd like to. You?

I been hunting in Uzbekistan, Tadjikistan, and Afghanistan but not yet in Moscow area, but seems to be good hunting ground here. I have contracts to some outfitters here and plan for some hunt this year. Wanne join?

yankee@moscow
08-04-2005, 18:35
When you get the details, send me a PM. We'll rap.

Ledka
08-04-2005, 18:38
Cherokee, yankee@moscow!
MURDERS!:verymad: :suspect: :cussing:

veejay
08-04-2005, 18:40
Originally posted by koba65
I could kill more with a weapon requiring frequent reloading than with a fully automatic - why? More accuracy. Fully automatic is mainly used for supressing fire. We only use in the Army for such activities. Actually, I only had my weapon on full auto, maybe 3 times and that was for training purposes.

Few minutes to re-load? Were you using a muzzle loader from Davey Crockett times? ;)

jeez louise...split a few more hairs, why don't ya?

point was...what purpose does anyone outside the military have to own a semi-automatic weapon?!

and sorry...but, telling me that you could 'kill more' with a weapon requiring frequent reloading is not impressing me, nor is it making me see your side of the argument...

i've personally had a gun from my mom's home held at my temple. not by a 'crazy criminal', but by an intruder who also happened to be a bit unstable and who actually knew where the guns were in her home. i'll spare you the details. unpleasant? yes. did any of the other guns in the house help the situation? no. (this was in suburbia US, not in an urban setting, just so you know.) i've also had 2 friends, and one other long-time friend of our family take a gun from the gun cabinets in their house and either blow their own brains out or shoot someone else.

again, i know how to shoot one, and i fully respect the power they wield. i also realise fully that they are intended to 'kill' -- be that an animal or a human. this human is not into killing other humans or seeing them killed...

koba65
08-04-2005, 19:58
Originally posted by veejay
jeez louise...split a few more hairs, why don't ya?

point was...what purpose does anyone outside the military have to own a semi-automatic weapon?!

and sorry...but, telling me that you could 'kill more' with a weapon requiring frequent reloading is not impressing me, nor is it making me see your side of the argument...

i've personally had a gun from my mom's home held at my temple. not by a 'crazy criminal', but by an intruder who also happened to be a bit unstable and who actually knew where the guns were in her home. i'll spare you the details. unpleasant? yes. did any of the other guns in the house help the situation? no. (this was in suburbia US, not in an urban setting, just so you know.) i've also had 2 friends, and one other long-time friend of our family take a gun from the gun cabinets in their house and either blow their own brains out or shoot someone else.

again, i know how to shoot one, and i fully respect the power they wield. i also realise fully that they are intended to 'kill' -- be that an animal or a human. this human is not into killing other humans or seeing them killed...

Wasn't trying to impress you. I guess I should have wrote "one can kill more with a weapon not on auto.."

I've been shot, not gun to the temple, on more than one ocassion. Armed or not, the feeling is uncomfortable. But the whole point is moot. As long as there are unstable people or criminals we will continue to have suicides, murders, violence, crimes, etc. Banning guns, knifes, materials to make pipe bombs, ropes, fists, poisons, drugs,alcohol, etc., will do no good as long as people are willing to take their own or others lives. What DOES help is to have prosecutors and judges willing to enforce the multitude of laws on the books already.

Most responsible (key word) gun owners usually do not display their guns in their home or let the knowledge about guns in the home be known - mostly because of the possibility they will be a juicy target for a thief (when they are not at home).

Lemme ask you this - would you have been willing to shoot the intruder if you a.) thought he/she was going to kill your mother and b.) you had a gun and we're competent in its use?

And regarding suicide, I've had friends and acquaintances, schoolmates, etc, who killed themselves - only one by shotgun blast. The rest: carbon monoxide death (by car), another - jumpin off of a building, another, hanging, and yet another by o.d-ng - point being: Someone who REALLY wants to kill themselves will find a way. It's not the building, the rope, the gun, the car, the pills fault that they did it.

koba65
08-04-2005, 20:01
Originally posted by Halyavshik

Kobster, it's sad that we regard this as an offense worthy of eliminating human life. I'd give away my possessions and whatever I have before robbing someone of their life.

And if that person was intent on harming/killing you or you wife and children? Would you be willing to part with those "possessions." I know I wouldn't. To me that person would be a future stain on my carpet - and with no remorse.

koba65
08-04-2005, 20:15
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Koba, 360,000 less guns sold in America is 360,000 less guns available to criminals. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Those that do make their way in are twenty times more expensive. It's simple economics.

YEah, drugs were legal, and now they're not. Hopefully we'll see a day when guns are illegal too.

And it's not a fact, Koba, that lower crime rates are BECAUSE of "shall carry" laws. Lott and Mustard were caught with coding errors in their findings that actually show an INCREASE in crime with "shall carry" laws. There are publications out there to discredit that statistic which use legitimate controls for gun-control laws (which Lott didn't). To date, there's been no definitive report proving any relation between a decrease in crime rates and "shall carry" laws.

But again, what does it matter, you can point to crime increases or decreases in Europe, or Australia, or the US, but the fact of the matter, and there's no dispute about it, that per capita gun fatalities elsewhere are fractions of what they are in the US.

It's sad that we need to defend something intended to be so dangerous and so ambiguously defined in a constitution 220 years ago. Sad that we are so callous as to say "I'd shoot 'em!" and show so little disregard for human life. Sad, that we're so ready to kill and depend on something so terribly violent.


"FACT: The non-gun homicide rate for children in the U.S. is more than twice as high than other western countries.

Eight times as many children die from non-gun violent acts than from gun crimes.
* Kids and Guns, 2000, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

FACT: 82% of homicides to children age 13 and under were committed without a gun.

* 1997, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics

FACT: 0.1% of all deaths for children between the ages 0-14 are from firearms, 0.6% are from motor vehicles, 5.3% are from being struck in beatings or bludgeoning, 6.0% from poisoning, and 42.6% from suffocation.

* 1997 National Center for Health Statistics National Vital Statistics Report

FACT: In 1996 there were only 21 accidental gun deaths for children under age 15. About twice as many children under 10 die from drowning in bathtubs.

* Centers for Disease Control

MYTH: 13 Children are killed each day by guns.

FACT: The statistics cited for this myth include "children" up to age 19 or age 24, depending on the source. Most violent crime is committed by males ages 16-24, so these numbers include adult gang members dying during criminal activity.

*FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1997

FACT: 18-20 year olds commit over 23% of all gun murders. None of these criminals are allowed to purchase a handgun due to their age under current law.

* U.S. Treasury and Justice Dept. Report, 1999

FACT: There are more than 22,000 gun laws at the city, county, state, and federal level.

* BATF estimate, 1992

FACT: There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns according to the 1998 FBI statistics and 207,754,000 automobiles according to the 1998 Federal Highway Administration registrations). Yet, you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council…despite cars having been registered and licensed for more than 100 years.

FACT: 90% of all violent crime in the U.S. does not involve any gun of any type.

* 1998 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms


FACT: Less than 1% of all guns will ever be used in the commission of any type of crime (much less violent crime).

*FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994


FACT: Two-thirds of the people that die each year from gunfire are criminals shooting other criminals.

* FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1994


FACT: Every year, people in the United States use a gun to defend themselves against criminals an estimated 2,500,000 times- more than 6,500 people a day, or once every 13 seconds.

* Fall 1995, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

This means that, each year, firearms are used 65 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.

FACT: Of the 250,000,000 annual self-defense cases using guns, more than 7.7% are by women defending themselves against sexual abuse.

* U.S. Dept. of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration"
ACT: 92.7% of law enforcement officials believe that citizens should be able to purchase firearms for self-defense and sporting purposes.

* 1999 Police Survey, National Assoc. of Chiefs of Police



MYTH: Police are our protection, and people don't need guns.



FACT: The courts have consistently ruled that the police do not have an obligation to protect individuals. In Warren v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dept.,

444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981), the court stated: 'Courts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.'



FACT: After Canada's 1977 gun controls prohibited handgun possession for self defense, the "breaking and entering" crime rate rose 25%, surpassing the U.S. rate.

* Pat Mayhew, Residential Burglary: A Comparison of the United States,

Canada and England and Wales (Nat'l Inst. Of Just., Wash., D.C., 1987)

MYTH: Japan has strict gun control and a less violent society.



FACT: In Japan, the murder rate is about 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 each year by weapons other than firearms.

* United Nations data

Cherokee
08-04-2005, 21:16
Originally posted by Ledka
Cherokee, yankee@moscow!
MURDERS!:verymad: :suspect: :cussing:

nechewo Ledka...I only kill what I eat...:D wanne join for dinner??

yankee@moscow
08-04-2005, 22:14
Originally posted by Ledka
Cherokee, yankee@moscow!
MURDERS!:verymad: :suspect: :cussing:

I admit it. I've killed more than one Bambi in my lifetime. There, I said it. People on the other hand, I've never killed any, not even the ones that deserved it.

So, apparently you don't distinguish between murder and killing? There's a big difference in my book. The end result is the same though. The difference is the reason not the result.

koba65
08-04-2005, 22:29
Originally posted by Cherokee
nechewo Ledka...I only kill what I eat...:D wanne join for dinner??

Might I recommend a light Chianti and fava beans? ;)

veejay
09-04-2005, 02:48
Originally posted by koba65
Wasn't trying to impress you. I guess I should have wrote "one can kill more with a weapon not on auto.."

I've been shot, not gun to the temple, on more than one ocassion. Armed or not, the feeling is uncomfortable. But the whole point is moot. As long as there are unstable people or criminals we will continue to have suicides, murders, violence, crimes, etc. Banning guns, knifes, materials to make pipe bombs, ropes, fists, poisons, drugs,alcohol, etc., will do no good as long as people are willing to take their own or others lives. What DOES help is to have prosecutors and judges willing to enforce the multitude of laws on the books already.

Most responsible (key word) gun owners usually do not display their guns in their home or let the knowledge about guns in the home be known - mostly because of the possibility they will be a juicy target for a thief (when they are not at home).

Lemme ask you this - would you have been willing to shoot the intruder if you a.) thought he/she was going to kill your mother and b.) you had a gun and we're competent in its use?

And regarding suicide, I've had friends and acquaintances, schoolmates, etc, who killed themselves - only one by shotgun blast. The rest: carbon monoxide death (by car), another - jumpin off of a building, another, hanging, and yet another by o.d-ng - point being: Someone who REALLY wants to kill themselves will find a way. It's not the building, the rope, the gun, the car, the pills fault that they did it.
Well, regarding responsible gun owners -- my mother's gun that was pulled out was not displayed, nor was it in a particularly obvious place. this is someone who knew us well, had been a close frined of the family for ages. problem was, he freaked.

second, i consider myself competent with a gun. i am not willing to shoot anyone. full stop. i'm not for an eye for an eye, etc. i cannot, in principle, justify killing anyone regardless of the context or circumstances.

reagarding someone being able to find teh means to commit suicide, point taken. but, it's far easier when someone who is in a desperatee position -- be it, suicidal, enraged, what have you -- to grab the firearm and blast away...i'm not saying that that in and of itself is reason to ban firearms. i'm just saying that it makes me personally very reluctant to justify leniency when it comes to licenses, procurement and ownership.

koba65
09-04-2005, 03:16
Originally posted by veejay
second, i consider myself competent with a gun. i am not willing to shoot anyone. full stop. i'm not for an eye for an eye, etc. i cannot, in principle, justify killing anyone regardless of the context or circumstances.

I guess that makes you a better person than I am, because I'll tell you straight up if someone tries to harm anyone I care about I would not have a problem ending their existence. Or, should I just stand there and let them kill, let's say, my child, my wife, my mom...? You may not be able to "justify" it, but society does - that's why we do have such a thing as "justifiable homocide."
Interesting about the "killing anyone" regardless of context or circumtances - respectable, so I guess you're anti-abortion (especially partial-birth)?

PS- The fact that a deranged person used a gun to threaten your mother doesn't really support your anti-gun argument. Had their not been a gun available it's probably logical to assume that the deranged person would have used any weapon available (knife, hammer, whatever).

yankee@moscow
09-04-2005, 09:24
Originally posted by koba65

Interesting about the "killing anyone" regardless of context or circumtances - respectable, so I guess you're anti-abortion (especially partial-birth)?



Now that was a nice and creative way to open a can of worms. Hats off to ya!:)

Halyavshik
09-04-2005, 10:39
Originally posted by koba65
"FACT: ...FACT: ...FACT: ...FACT: ...FACT: ...FACT: ...

Koba, for all the statistics about greater fatalities rates in bathtubs and cars, there are still more per capita hand-gun fatalities in the US than any other country from an instrument designed to kill (unlike cars, which are strictly regulated with numerous safety laws and regulations). And we're again comparing things which have other uses. Guns do not. It's a faulty comparison.

FACT: You are more likely to be hurt than the intruder in defending yourself.

FACT: There is no proof that "Shall Carry" laws reduce crime

FACT: The Second Amendment is phrased ambiguously enough as to doubt whether it was ever intended to provide ordinary citizens the right to bear arms.

So again, the question is why ? Why do we spend billions of dollars lobbying for something that is ultimately designed to kill someone ?

And Koba, you ask if an intruder were intent on harming me or my family ?

I again say that YOU'RE more likely to bring harm or death to your family by having a gun in the house than an intruder is . And, that's a fact.

yankee@moscow
09-04-2005, 10:49
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Koba, for all the statistics about greater fatalities rates in bathtubs and cars, there are still more per capita hand-gun fatalities in the US than any other country

Apparently you're not counting countries in Africa where people are shot with assault rifles and handguns. If they had their own guns, maybe they could actually defend themselves instead of being slaughtered needlessly? Just a thought.

veejay
09-04-2005, 11:12
[QUOTE]Originally posted by koba65
I guess that makes you a better person than I am, because I'll tell you straight up if someone tries to harm anyone I care about I would not have a problem ending their existence. Or, should I just stand there and let them kill, let's say, my child, my wife, my mom...? You may not be able to "justify" it, but society does - that's why we do have such a thing as "justifiable homocide."
again, i don't justify killing in any circumstance. just because there is a law, does not necessarily mean that society justifies it.

Interesting about the "killing anyone" regardless of context or circumtances - respectable, so I guess you're anti-abortion (especially partial-birth)?
actually, i am 'pro-choice'. this is an entirely different issue, and depends largely upon when 'life' begins. i am, however, not surprisingly anti-capital punishment.

PS- The fact that a deranged person used a gun to threaten your mother doesn't really support your anti-gun argument. Had their not been a gun available it's probably logical to assume that the deranged person would have used any weapon available (knife, hammer, whatever).
sorry, but i fail to see your logic here. yes, indeed, he may have reached for another weapon. the fact is that he did not. and had he chosen something else, had he actually attempted to inflict harm, someone would have ended up dead (in that particular case, i would not be writing this today.) pulling a trigger takes less effort than searching for a dull kitchen knife or a hammer or whatever...and taking blows.

J.D.
09-04-2005, 11:41
I see two issues here.
The first, is it a constitutional right bear arms?
The second, putting aside the constitutional issue for the moment, should the government allow people to 'bear arms'?

Most of the discussion here, statistics and all, have to do with the second.
BUT if it is a constitutional right then all of this secondary stuff is moot.

I believe that it is a constitutional right. Many of the Authors of the consititution did not want a bill of rights because they felt that they were already inherant in the constitution and if they spelled them out then devious factions would try to limit people to ONLY these rights. It is very clear that they did not want the government to have any power unless it was expressly given to them. The devious factions try to say the government can do anything it wants unless it is expressly forbidden. The bill of rights is something that we already have, from God if you will, and they were only spelled out to please a few pragmatists whose signatures were neccessary to get the thing passed.

koba65
09-04-2005, 12:15
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Koba, for all the statistics about greater fatalities rates in bathtubs and cars, there are still more per capita hand-gun fatalities in the US than any other country from an instrument designed to kill (unlike cars, which are strictly regulated with numerous safety laws and regulations). And we're again comparing things which have other uses. Guns do not. It's a faulty comparison.

FACT: You are more likely to be hurt than the intruder in defending yourself.

FACT: There is no proof that "Shall Carry" laws reduce crime

FACT: The Second Amendment is phrased ambiguously enough as to doubt whether it was ever intended to provide ordinary citizens the right to bear arms.

So again, the question is why ? Why do we spend billions of dollars lobbying for something that is ultimately designed to kill someone ?

And Koba, you ask if an intruder were intent on harming me or my family ?

I again say that YOU'RE more likely to bring harm or death to your family by having a gun in the house than an intruder is . And, that's a fact.

Hal,
Disagree, but time to move on! ;)

koba65
09-04-2005, 12:17
Originally posted by yankee@moscow
Now that was a nice and creative way to open a can of worms. Hats off to ya!:) '

Who lil' ol' me? Bored off my a## in Minsk, what can I say?

yankee@moscow
09-04-2005, 12:58
Originally posted by koba65
'

Who lil' ol' me? Bored off my a## in Minsk, what can I say?

Great place to encourage a (fill in the color) revolution if you are that bored. ;)

koba65
09-04-2005, 14:48
Originally posted by veejay

again, i don't justify killing in any circumstance. just because there is a law, does not necessarily mean that society justifies it.
i am, however, not surprisingly anti-capital punishment.

So, you're really not completely against killing people then. Just as long as it's the state "pulling the trigger."


sorry, but i fail to see your logic here. yes, indeed, he may have reached for another weapon. the fact is that he did not. and had he chosen something else, had he actually attempted to inflict harm, someone would have ended up dead (in that particular case, i would not be writing this today.) pulling a trigger takes less effort than searching for a dull kitchen knife or a hammer or whatever...and taking blows.

"Logic" is if a gun isn't available a wackjob can find anything (or carry anything in with them) to kill. I would argue it is just as easy to kill someone with a knife, than with a gun at close range. Just a little slide across the neck, plunge into the back of the base of the head, or right into the heart. As a matter of fact, some of the most BRUTAL murders in our country's history were carried out by using a knife or blunt instruments - but there is no clamoring for outlawing or registering these "weapons."

I'll tell you a gruesome story about a guy I grew up with, a guy who was a friend of mine - He was wacked out on LSD one evening and his girlfriend told him she was pregnant. He was freaked out, and high, wanted to "see if she was lying" - so, this turd took her to a park, lured her into the woods, killed her with a stab to the heart, then did other horrid things - the assistant coroner, who also happened to be a friend of ours and knew the victim, didn't even recognize her - they stopped counting at 150+ knife wounds. In his condition he would have had trouble using a gun - a knife was a lot easier...

Here's the b####d:

http://www.drc.state.oh.us/cfdocs/inmate/InmateSearch2.cfm?offnumpre=A&offnum=203236

I also don't buy into the argument that "guns" are only meant to kill, thus anyone who has a gun is a potential "killer." That ranks up there with the feminist group at the Univ. of Maryland that published a list of all males as "potential rapists" because they had penises.

People kill because of defects in their personal makeup. Killers will use anything to accomplish their "tasks." If banning guns eliminated murder we'd be one of the few countries in the world where murder still exists.

Some have argued about the ease of suicide because of guns - another faulty argument. The US doesn't rank first in suicide - other countries do - and guess what, they don't allow personal ownership of guns. Just as a person who is bent on killing someone can use anything to do so, a person bent on killing themselves will do the same.

veejay
09-04-2005, 15:19
clarification. i am against capital punishment. read what i wrote again.

Shaun
09-04-2005, 16:09
Originally posted by koba65
"Logic" is if a gun isn't available a wackjob can find anything (or carry anything in with them) to kill. I would argue it is just as easy to kill someone with a knife, than with a gun at close range. Just a little slide across the neck, plunge into the back of the base of the head, or right into the heart. As a matter of fact, some of the most BRUTAL murders in our country's history were carried out by using a knife or blunt instruments - but there is no clamoring for outlawing or registering these "weapons."


Clearly knifing someone (or yourself) requires quite a lot more difficulty that pulling a little trigger...

And, people have knives at home because, obviously, you can use them for e.g. cooking. I don't know the situation in the US but in the UK it IS illegal to carry a knife unless you have a very good reason- eg you're a chef on the way to work. If you are stopped by the police and you have a knife on you you can be arrested.

The argument is never that there are not people who could have a gun in their house and would use it responsibly. Trouble is that there are plenty of people who can't, as testified by all those murders you have over there. And yes, other factors certainly play a part. But is it not startlingly, blindingly obvious that it's just not a good idea to have guns lying around people's houses?!

Capital punishment, abortion, war on terror, I can see the opposite point of view while disagreeing with it. Gun advocacy just seems ridiculous to me. Can't understand it at all.

Shaun
09-04-2005, 16:13
Originally posted by koba65

Some have argued about the ease of suicide because of guns - another faulty argument. The US doesn't rank first in suicide - other countries do - and guess what, they don't allow personal ownership of guns. Just as a person who is bent on killing someone can use anything to do so, a person bent on killing themselves will do the same.

This is pretty flawed. Nobody says suicide is only determined by access to guns. How do you know that if they had guns in Finland the suicide rate wouldn't be even higher. Quite obviously, access to a gun is not the only reason someone tries to commit suicide, even more obviously, it would help you considerably if you did have that access.

If I was really intent on it, I'm not sure I could stomach knifing myself or jumping off a bridge and drowning, but a nice gunshot into the mouth and its all over before you know it... nice and easy... er, not that i've been thinking about it!

Halyavshik
09-04-2005, 17:56
Originally posted by koba65
Hal,
Disagree, but time to move on! ;)

Move on ? I'm so wound up I could shoot you ! :)

koba65
09-04-2005, 21:26
Originally posted by Halyavshik
Move on ? I'm so wound up I could shoot you ! :)


Sdayus! I hope you know I'm really just arguing for argument's sake - I don't have that strong of a view on this crap. Ya'll just providing me something to do in boring Minsk...

koba65
09-04-2005, 21:30
Originally posted by Shaun
This is pretty flawed. Nobody says suicide is only determined by access to guns. How do you know that if they had guns in Finland the suicide rate wouldn't be even higher. Quite obviously, access to a gun is not the only reason someone tries to commit suicide, even more obviously, it would help you considerably if you did have that access.

If I was really intent on it, I'm not sure I could stomach knifing myself or jumping off a bridge and drowning, but a nice gunshot into the mouth and its all over before you know it... nice and easy... er, not that i've been thinking about it!

I don't agree that the rates would increase, you're second paragraph kind of sums it up "Where there is a will there is a way." I think if someone thinks that life sucks so bad that they want to off themselves they'll do it. Besides, the most "peaceful and painless" way to go is by carbon monoxide poisoning - you know - turn your car on in the garage and just drift off...

Suicide by a handgun isn't a certain thing either. There are plenty of cases where people have "survived" the suicide attempt by gunshot - leaving themselves in a real mess. Best to use a shotgun (and don't forget to lay plastic down - gotta be courteous to your fellow human beings who have to clean up after you) (Disclaimer: this is no way endorses suicide!)

koba65
09-04-2005, 21:34
Originally posted by veejay
clarification. i am against capital punishment. read what i wrote again.

I did, point taken -don't agree, but at least you're consistent and not hypocritical, alhough, I always find it odd myself [pro-choice/and pro-capital punishment, btw] that people who have no problem with abortion are against capital punishment and people who are for capital punishment are against abortion...

koba65
09-04-2005, 21:38
Originally posted by Shaun
Clearly knifing someone (or yourself) requires quite a lot more difficulty that pulling a little trigger...

And, people have knives at home because, obviously, you can use them for e.g. cooking. I don't know the situation in the US but in the UK it IS illegal to carry a knife unless you have a very good reason- eg you're a chef on the way to work. If you are stopped by the police and you have a knife on you you can be arrested.

The argument is never that there are not people who could have a gun in their house and would use it responsibly. Trouble is that there are plenty of people who can't, as testified by all those murders you have over there. And yes, other factors certainly play a part. But is it not startlingly, blindingly obvious that it's just not a good idea to have guns lying around people's houses?!

Capital punishment, abortion, war on terror, I can see the opposite point of view while disagreeing with it. Gun advocacy just seems ridiculous to me. Can't understand it at all.

A Chef on the way to work? So, Lenny Henry gets a knife-carry exemption? That is really strange.

Ironically, the only place I've ever been a victim of a violent crime (twice) was in the UK (N. Yorkshire). Plus, my home was broken into and my car was as well. Four crimes in 3 years in the UK.

veejay
10-04-2005, 01:00
Originally posted by koba65
I did, point taken -don't agree, but at least you're consistent and not hypocritical, alhough, I always find it odd myself [pro-choice/and pro-capital punishment, btw] that people who have no problem with abortion are against capital punishment and people who are for capital punishment are against abortion...
i think the odd thing about the abortion / pro-choice is that if someone says they are pro-choice, automatically that implies that you are pro-abortion. not necessarily the case. it's more, in both personal terms and thru on-going research i've been involved in that pro-choice means just that...for the right of an individual to determine themselves what they do -- that is, choose to continue a pregnancy or choose to terminate it. the pro-choice individual does not necessarily think that abortion is a good thing; just that it is a personal decision that each woman should have a right to make...without government intervention...

what i find really odd is that pro-life proponents have very strict definitions of when life begins, and that ending a human life is wrong immorally, and yet they seem to be extremely vocal in their support of capital punishment...

my tuppence...

on a somewhat separate point...violent crimes against someone...whilst i've been mugged here several times, the only other place that i've had any real problems is in the US. car and flat broken into within 5 weeks of one another (3 weeks before i moved from one flat, to another -- first my flat was broken into at flat no. 1, and then my car was broken into at flat no. 2). one new year's eve, we were shot at 3 times and then held up by a knife weilding guy on our way home.

yes...i'm still for strict gun control laws...and absolutely against private ownership of semi-automatic weapons...

Cherokee
10-04-2005, 02:44
Originally posted by koba65
Might I recommend a light Chianti and fava beans? ;)

nice try Koba, but I prefer a Rioja Grand Reserva...

koba65
10-04-2005, 13:07
Originally posted by veejay

my tuppence...

on a somewhat separate point...violent crimes against someone...whilst i've been mugged here several times, the only other place that i've had any real problems is in the US. car and flat broken into within 5 weeks of one another (3 weeks before i moved from one flat, to another -- first my flat was broken into at flat no. 1, and then my car was broken into at flat no. 2). one new year's eve, we were shot at 3 times and then held up by a knife weilding guy on our way home.

yes...i'm still for strict gun control laws...and absolutely against private ownership of semi-automatic weapons...

Might I recommend a canister of pepper spray?

Where do you live in the US - Detroit? ;)

veejay
10-04-2005, 14:03
Originally posted by koba65
Might I recommend a canister of pepper spray?

Where do you live in the US - Detroit? ;)
koba...! man, i will not carry any sort of weapon! be it pepper spray, a blade, a gun or whatever...!!!

all of the events from above were in different cities...new year's eve mayhem was in suburban st. louis... flat/car break ins were in atlanta...

i now live here, and thus don't have a flat in the US. however, when i go back, i feel safest and most at home in NYC. touch wood, have never had so much as a pickpocketing mishap there...unlike here...

koba65
10-04-2005, 15:09
Originally posted by veejay
koba...! man, i will not carry any sort of weapon! be it pepper spray, a blade, a gun or whatever...!!!

all of the events from above were in different cities...new year's eve mayhem was in suburban st. louis... flat/car break ins were in atlanta...

i now live here, and thus don't have a flat in the US. however, when i go back, i feel safest and most at home in NYC. touch wood, have never had so much as a pickpocketing mishap there...unlike here...

Atlanta was my second guess!

Pepper spray is good against stray attacking dogs too... ;). I hope you at least are escorted by a friend or two when you have to venture out late at night!

veejay
10-04-2005, 19:23
Originally posted by koba65
Atlanta was my second guess!

Pepper spray is good against stray attacking dogs too... ;). I hope you at least are escorted by a friend or two when you have to venture out late at night!
all this crap happened about 10 years ago, koba...or in the case of st. louis, must have been 1988...atlanta was at the time a safe city -- not at all that scary.

an escort? i live in moscow, dude...not in the US anymore...

i've only ever been attacked by one dog -- it wasn't a stray and a clipboard worked just fine...

koba65
10-04-2005, 19:31
Originally posted by veejay
all this crap happened about 10 years ago, koba...or in the case of st. louis, must have been 1988...atlanta was at the time a safe city -- not at all that scary.

an escort? i live in moscow, dude...not in the US anymore...

i've only ever been attacked by one dog -- it wasn't a stray and a clipboard worked just fine...

I meant Moscow.

Ask Sadie about stray dogs.

yankee@moscow
10-04-2005, 20:09
Originally posted by koba65
I meant Moscow.

Ask Sadie about stray dogs.

You're not kidding! There's a pack of them down by Paveletskaya metro that are just like dogs in the wild. I've never seen anything like it in a city before. They seem to even take turns being on watch. It's one of the craziest things I've seen in Moscow. Well, at least during the daytime. :rolleyes:

Ledka
11-04-2005, 10:32
Originally posted by Cherokee
nechewo Ledka...I only kill what I eat...:D wanne join for dinner??

only if you won't make cook that dead body...

Cherokee
11-04-2005, 12:12
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ledka
only if you won't make cook that dead body... [/QUOTE

Dont worry, I eat my victims alive!:D