For or against?

What guns can or can't be used for is irrelevant to this discussion. Hemp making nice rope didn't stop its prohibition.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Nigga plz, if I carry anything bigger than a 9mm automatic, I'm already outgunning the police. Your standard shotgun is heavier firepower than what most beat cops would use (though they have to get it off the gun rack).

Yeah, yeah I know. Gangbangers already have access to light smgs like Mac-10's. AKs would make a bad situation much worse for the cops though.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Besides, if citizens can't own anything that can penetrate Level I armor, how are we supposed to effectively rebel? :'D

We're supposed to steal credit cards, and like order pizza that they didn't order. Viva la resistance!!!

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The simple solution to this problem would be giving police better body armor, and better firearms, but that costs cash money, and lobbyists love pushing peacenik issues that get the standard police caliber down to 9mm from 45 cal.

All too true. I think the Politizer is equipped with former Bundeswehr stuff though. Our Army is bound to have old caches of M-16's lying around. So that's money already spent. Who knows!

How ya doing, buddy?

So, how do we know what Gangbangers have access to?

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Bradylama

So, how do we know what Gangbangers have access to?

My mommy, who was a teacher. Retired now. At one point in her career she taught gang members, rapists, and various other juvenile offenders at a "special" alternative school. She had to be on the look out for the kind of stuff. 'Lest someone shoot up the school.

That's also the source of how I knew that five gallons of gasoline equals to about a stick of TNT. She always brought home stories about how her students were uhh talking about ways to make car bombs out of materials commonly found among the average household. Scary really.

*edit!* Of course she turned them into the police, but that still doesn't change the fact that they probably know how to do that sort of stuff.

FELIPE NO

Most police now carry AR-15's in place of the traditional shotgun. Other favored patrol rifles are the Ruger Mini 14 and the old M-1 carbine. Some agencies also carry the pistol caliber rifles from Ruger and marlin chambered in .40 or 9mm.

The idea that the police are regularly outgunned is a myth.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Gumby

CetteHamsterLa: Hitting someone over and over with a baseball bat to kill them is murder. Shooting someone because they are shooting at you is self defense. You make it sound like I as someone who wants a gun to defend my home that I am just out to kill any jackass who breaks into my home. You are dead wrong. I know when a gun necessary and when it is not. Anyone who has been properly taught about firearms knows this as well. This is another reason why our children should receive gun training.

I was just clarifying the meaning of that statement to david not making a comment that all guns are used for murder. It's simply easier and takes less commitment to kill someone with a gun is all. Which could potentially make someone already inclined to kill more likely to. In say a home defense situation even if you were needing to fend them off with a bat while it is an inferior weapon you have to admit that you can generally stop a person without killling them while there's less of a guarantee of that with a gun.


Hell I'm not even against guns I just don't believe thay're as necessary or as much of a solution to some problems as soem people try to make it. The whole every problem looks liek a nail when all you have a hammer saying causes problems when people replaces hammer with gun. And I've known enough people who seem to feel that way to at the very least make me uncomfortable with just any idiot beign able to get one.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Skexis

But how sure are you that your childhood is a representative sample of children everywhere?

I wasn't trying to imply that it was. My childhood was far from average in that respect. In addition to guns, I've also had firsthand exposure to scientific research involving high explosives as well as commercial blasting, which isn't something that the other kids in first grade did on the weekends with their dads.

"What'd you do over the weekend."

"I helped my dad blow up a beaver dam, and next weekend we're going to turn some marshy area into a duck pond for the park rangers."

Originally Posted by Wesker

The idea that the police are regularly outgunned is a myth.

no kidding, although the police will claim that they're "outgunned" all the time. they claimed they were "outgunned" during the Columbine shootings.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by CetteHamsterLa

I was just clarifying the meaning of that statement to david not making a comment that all guns are used for murder. It's simply easier and takes less commitment to kill someone with a gun is all. Which could potentially make someone already inclined to kill more likely to. In say a home defense situation even if you were needing to fend them off with a bat while it is an inferior weapon you have to admit that you can generally stop a person without killling them while there's less of a guarantee of that with a gun.


Hell I'm not even against guns I just don't believe thay're as necessary or as much of a solution to some problems as soem people try to make it. The whole every problem looks liek a nail when all you have a hammer saying causes problems when people replaces hammer with gun. And I've known enough people who seem to feel that way to at the very least make me uncomfortable with just any idiot beign able to get one.

Yes I see your point but it does not discourage me from having the desire of owning a firearm. I have received a lot of training with weapons, both from the civi world and from the military. I know how and when to use a weapon to defend my family and I. This is why I am very pro gun ed in school. If more people were properly educated on firearms we'd have less accidents, particularly with children.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Nor should it that was hardly my point. You can have all the firearms you want it's your choice. I'm just saying maybe at a minimum they should screen more carefully who can get guns and add a higher requirement of courses to get a license. I don't know exactly what the current requirements are I imagine they vary from state to state but they need to make damn sure every aspect of what people need to know and be trained in is covered before the person can lay hands on a gun. And I'm still not sure how much people need say an assault rifle for either hunting or self defence so I'm a might shaky on whether they should be allowable but I must admit they are nifty.

The rest was just clearing things up for david as he was misinterpriting the one Sin City quote as being some bullshit about using honourable weaponry.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Gumby

I suggest you do some research before you come back, you seem to be rather misinformed.

Then how about you inform me, then? Honestly, I'd like to see some facts presented to this discussion and solid proof that legally purchased and owned guns would never be used for murder.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

There was never really a true "People's Rebellion" until the advent of the gun. There have never been free societies before the gun. The gun, as they say, is the Great Equalizer, and the base threat of force it provides is what, I feel, makes the right to bear arms so important. It forces law to remain legitimate, it forces governments into serving their people.

This news just in: Ancient Greeks had guns!

Originally Posted by David121312412

And Gumby, you CAN hunt with a sword. I think I read someplace that in the old days africans would hunt lions with swords as a "right of passage". Basicly, if you can kill a big ass lion with a sword, then you're badass enough to be called a "man", LOL...

LOL! Oh wait no.

Originally Posted by Gumby

A sword was designed explicitly for fighting with other humans. Firearms however can be designed for hunting as well as weapons of war. So please do not twist my words.

Look here's the difference between swords and guns. If someone came at you with a sword not only could you fight back but the fight would be noble and fair in a sense.
I say noble because only noble men were armed and when they did challenge and dual to the death it was a fair contest.
With a gun bang you're fucking dead. If you're regular home invader comes in guns blazing. If he even sees you reach for a gun he'll shoot you dead before you even get it from your bedside drawer, or your blazer pocket. You're a gonna.

At least if you're unarmed you can surrender. But hey home invasions everyday.

Also lol guys the guy that robs your home with a gun isn't a hardend criminal from the underworld with all the secret links to get the latest in illegal weaponry. They're normally young men who had a shit upbringing, dropped out of school and can't even organise opening a bank account.

The gangs, the mafia are the ones with the links, the ones who'll illegally obtain weapons and here's the thing, they don't come after you, they go after rival gangs. If you're shot by the mafia you're most likely a crook yourself and deseved it. I can assure you, since Australia banned guns semi automatic and consealable guns the vast majority of people shot are bikies and underworld figures.

Originally Posted by CetteHamsterLa

I was just clarifying the meaning of that statement to david not making a comment that all guns are used for murder. It's simply easier and takes less commitment to kill someone with a gun is all. Which could potentially make someone already inclined to kill more likely to. In say a home defense situation even if you were needing to fend them off with a bat while it is an inferior weapon you have to admit that you can generally stop a person without killling them while there's less of a guarantee of that with a gun.

Pretty much spot on.
In a country where lethal weapons are unavailible, if you really wanted to kill someone who have to goto pretty extrodinary lengths, lengths most people aren't prpared to goto. If you live in the states, you just gotta buy the gun buy the bullet and bang. Piss easy.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Quote:

This news just in: Ancient Greeks had guns!

I'd hardly call the Ancient Greeks a free society.

Quote:

Look here's the difference between swords and guns. If someone came at you with a sword not only could you fight back but the fight would be noble and fair in a sense.
I say noble because only noble men were armed and when they did challenge and dual to the death it was a fair contest.
With a gun bang you're fucking dead. If you're regular home invader comes in guns blazing. If he even sees you reach for a gun he'll shoot you dead before you even get it from your bedside drawer, or your blazer pocket. You're a gonna.

So how do you feel about Dueling pistols?

How ya doing, buddy?

Dueling pistols is pretty cool actually but people arn't up for it today.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

I think it's because it's illegal.

Imagine Dick Cheney and John W. Snow in a pistol duel.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Dick Cheney shoots his second. Why lie.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I was just suggesting a modern version of the Hamilton vs Burr duel.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Rock

Then how about you inform me, then? Honestly, I'd like to see some facts presented to this discussion and solid proof that legally purchased and owned guns would never be used for murder.

Rock, I suggested that you do some research on this matter before you continued this debate. Also no one in their right mind would say that no legally purchased guns would be used in crime. That

These were all found in a 2 minute google search.
Statics
Lowest violent crime rate in 30 years. Gun ownership is up.
1999 state comparison of crime rates
American Enterpise Institute for Public Policy Research

There were about 500,000 guns sold last year. Last year there were only about 31,200 violent crimes that involved guns. This does not take into account all of the guns that were sold in the past 100 years that are still in current circulation of the gun market. You do the math; VERY few of the guns on the market are actually used in violent crimes. Then when you look at the fact that our crime rates are going down to 30 year record lows after out assault weapon ban was lifted while the Great Britain which completely outlawed handguns in 1997 have sky rocketing crime rates.

A lot of good information

You wanted hard facts Rock, there they are. I'm sure there is much more information out there.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

I didn't feel like reading the entire thread, but I read the first page or so.

Here is my opinion... I live on a farm of 1000 acres and we fire guns for hunting animals or for sport. I think that guns like shotguns/rifles/etc. are just fine. However I think pistols and military fully automatics are NOT! I live in a rural town of 628 and I have yet to see someone hunt with a pistol or an M-16!
The only incidents we here about handgun crimes are in cities. The people of NYC don't take Friday off and go hunting for elk somewhere in NY state with their concealed pistol, but when they want to feel superior (for whatever reason) they might be inclined to take it or even worse, use it!
Sometimes when I am really angery at someone and I'm talking to them and they are making me extremely pissed, I think, "If I had a pistol, would I shoot this person in the face?" Some times I really think about it, but 5 minutes later I would regret it and the decision for the rest of my life!
I don't know how I would argue on a basis of self defense. Using guns for the purpose of killing someone just gets to me.
It's kind of like the 2nd Sabrina the Teenage Witch episode, Bundt Friday. Jenny says, "I know the world would be alot better if everyone told the truth, but we all know we can't stop someone from lieing."
In this analogy, we can agree that just because you can't tell someone to stop lieing and tell the truth (by using truth sprinkles on their Bundt cakes!!!!) doesn't mean that we can just all lie and not feel any regret from it. Just like lieing is considered a bad thing (which it is!) and a sin for all of your Christian-heads, carrying concealed handguns and military special wepons shouldn't be aloud without a proper excuse (military or whatever).

Thanks,
Joseph

Most amazing jew boots

I don't think that "are you for or against gun" the right question (ot i'm probably misunderstanding... anyway)

If you look in canada, what was suppose to cost less than 50M$ (the gun registry) has become a 1G$ (and counting) hole. Ayway, do you really think that criminals register their weapons?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by jsphweid

It's kind of like the 2nd Sabrina the Teenage Witch episode, Bundt Friday. Jenny says, "I know the world would be alot better if everyone told the truth, but we all know we can't stop someone from lieing."

This man has just used a Sabrina the Teenage Witch quote.

I think he's trumped EVERYONE.

FELIPE NO

Jesus Christ, why don't I just close the fucking thread?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by Gumby

Rock, I suggested that you do some research on this matter before you continued this debate. Also no one in their right mind would say that no legally purchased guns would be used in crime. That

These were all found in a 2 minute google search.
Statics
Lowest violent crime rate in 30 years. Gun ownership is up.
1999 state comparison of crime rates
American Enterpise Institute for Public Policy Research

There were about 500,000 guns sold last year. Last year there were only about 31,200 violent crimes that involved guns. This does not take into account all of the guns that were sold in the past 100 years that are still in current circulation of the gun market. You do the math; VERY few of the guns on the market are actually used in violent crimes. Then when you look at the fact that our crime rates are going down to 30 year record lows after out assault weapon ban was lifted while the Great Britain which completely outlawed handguns in 1997 have sky rocketing crime rates.

A lot of good information

You wanted hard facts Rock, there they are. I'm sure there is much more information out there.

I guess it really depends on where you get your numbers. I saw a figure that Canada has a 50% higher crime rate than the US. But by this link: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm there seems to be more agravated assaults, homicides, robberies per capita in the US. Canada's crime rate seems higher for breaking and entering, vehicle theft, and arson. While these are all lumped into the 'violent crimes' category, they are hardly equivalent in terms of violence. Homicide and Aggravated assault are clearly more violent than the theft related crimes.

So, I'm not saying that the pro-gun camp's numbers are wrong, just that they don't match those from Statistics Canada.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by jsphweid

I didn't feel like reading the entire thread, but I read the first page or so.

Here is my opinion... I live on a farm of 1000 acres and we fire guns for hunting animals or for sport. I think that guns like shotguns/rifles/etc. are just fine. However I think pistols and military fully automatics are NOT! I live in a rural town of 628 and I have yet to see someone hunt with a pistol or an M-16!
The only incidents we here about handgun crimes are in cities. The people of NYC don't take Friday off and go hunting for elk somewhere in NY state with their concealed pistol, but when they want to feel superior (for whatever reason) they might be inclined to take it or even worse, use it!
Sometimes when I am really angery at someone and I'm talking to them and they are making me extremely pissed, I think, "If I had a pistol, would I shoot this person in the face?" Some times I really think about it, but 5 minutes later I would regret it and the decision for the rest of my life!
I don't know how I would argue on a basis of self defense. Using guns for the purpose of killing someone just gets to me.
It's kind of like the 2nd Sabrina the Teenage Witch episode, Bundt Friday. Jenny says, "I know the world would be alot better if everyone told the truth, but we all know we can't stop someone from lieing."
In this analogy, we can agree that just because you can't tell someone to stop lieing and tell the truth (by using truth sprinkles on their Bundt cakes!!!!) doesn't mean that we can just all lie and not feel any regret from it. Just like lieing is considered a bad thing (which it is!) and a sin for all of your Christian-heads, carrying concealed handguns and military special wepons shouldn't be aloud without a proper excuse (military or whatever).

Thanks,
Joseph

I'm not sure I can really take you seriously with a "Sabrina the Teenaged Witch" avatar :/ "Christian-heads"?!? wtf is wrong with you? awwh NVM.

Double Post:

Originally Posted by PUG1911

I guess it really depends on where you get your numbers. I saw a figure that Canada has a 50% higher crime rate than the US. But by this link: http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/011218/d011218b.htm there seems to be more agravated assaults, homicides, robberies per capita in the US. Canada's crime rate seems higher for breaking and entering, vehicle theft, and arson. While these are all lumped into the 'violent crimes' category, they are hardly equivalent in terms of violence. Homicide and Aggravated assault are clearly more violent than the theft related crimes.

So, I'm not saying that the pro-gun camp's numbers are wrong, just that they don't match those from Statistics Canada.

Some types of crime the US has higher numbers than in the UK but we are still on a significant downward trend while many countries that ban or heavily restrict guns are on a sharp upward trend with their crime rates.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I haven't seen anyone prove that there exists a strong correlation between high gun ownership rates and higher rates of murder. The benefits of having a weapon in your home as opposed to not having one far outweigh an outright ban on all weapons purchases within legal channels (because that's as far as government jurisdiction can extend, and its record in dealing with illicit markets for banned goods or substances has been weak) insofar as being able to defend the individual and his property against an armed robber or thug.

Some people argue that certain types of weapons should be banned, as opposed to small handguns would seemingly suffice against a criminal. To this, all we must do is look to the justitication that John Locke and the founders of the constitution gave for granting citizens the right to bear arms, and to use those arms in the event that a corrupt regime takes power and curbs essential freedoms. Just because the government exists in America doesn't mean it will never become corrupt, and no one has the foresight to say for sure that an American government in the future would not roll back those important freedoms. Considering the freedoms that have already been sacrificed in the War on Terror, and other potential freedoms that could be lost in the event of another, more serious, terrorist attack, or the resulting chaos of a nuclear armageddon, or any number of possible events, citizens must arm themselves to confront the potential threats posed by a corrupt government or a population relegated to anarchy. Therefore, placing limitations on the type of weapons that can be purchased only undermines those moral intentions behind the establishment of the second amendment, and puts Americans in a weaker position to defend their liberties against a possible corrupt regime.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by lordjames

Some people argue that certain types of weapons should be banned, as opposed to small handguns would seemingly suffice against a criminal. To this, all we must do is look to the justitication that John Locke and the founders of the constitution gave for granting citizens the right to bear arms, and to use those arms in the event that a corrupt regime takes power and curbs essential freedoms.

and then they'll argue, "oh but that was way back then when you had militias and blah blah blah... people were so uncivilized. the founding fathers really didn't know what they were doing anyways; we should re-write the constitution from the supreme court bench... and fuck john locke, adam smith, and thomas jefferson, we love karl marx and joe stalin!"

somebody just close this. nobody has changed their opinions on anything and they never will.

How ya doing, buddy?