I will probably be banned for this, but...shooting thread! [Archive]

Eki

28th February 2012, 15:24

Teenagers shouldn't have access to guns:

Victim Of Ohio School Shooting Declared Brain Dead, Suspect Described As 'outcast' | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/02/27/ohio-high-school-on-lockdown-after-reports-shooting/)

Family lawyer identifies Ohio teen suspected in school shooting that killed one
Published February 28, 2012

A teenager described as an "outcast" is suspected of opening fire on his classmates Monday at an Ohio high school, killing one student and leaving another brain dead, while wounding three others.
Witnesses say the gunman targeted a group of students in the school's cafeteria before reportedly being chased from the building by a teacher and apprehended by authorities about a half a mile away from Chardon High School.

28th February 2012, 18:27

Very sad. There are how many victims here. the children , one dead and one mentally unstable. The parents and siblings and from experience, the police and the healthcare people.

My first post complete :)

janvanvurpa

28th February 2012, 18:40

2 dead.

Bob Riebe

28th February 2012, 18:41

janvanvurpa

28th February 2012, 19:01

Now its 3 dead...so easy.

schmenke

28th February 2012, 19:13

Police shoot wrong man 6 TIMES !...

Do you really think the U.S. would be a safer place if police did not have access to guns?

28th February 2012, 19:21

Police shoot wrong man 6 TIMES !

current.com/.../91160064_police-shoot-wrong-man-6-...Jan 15, 2010
Man captures burglar in his house and is then shot by police ! The home owner is not white. He was shot ...
-------------
Merced Police Shoot Wrong Man - KGPE CBS47 Fresno - News ...
Oops! Page Not Found. (http://www.cbs47.tv/...Police-Shoot-Wrong-Man/14Ikc0Z8aEybO4wPqrw)...

Dec 7, 2011 – 21-year-old Vang Thao was in the wrong place at the wrong time when police opened fire at another man, hitting Thao by mistake.
------------

Police Kill Wrong Man in Armed Robbery: Investigators | NBC Los .
www.nbclosangeles.com/.../Police-Shoot-Wrong-Suspect-in-Armed- (http://www.nbclosangeles.com/.../Police-Shoot-Wrong-Suspect-in-Armed-)...

Oct 28, 2011 – A father of four was shot and killed by police in a case of mistaken identity following an armed robbery in Downey, investigators said Sunday
-----------
I am brand new so forgive me if I stick my size 12's in it. The post above is directed at the police but the person, Eki who started the thread is speaking of a child killed by another child.

Why are we speaking of the police? I have been in situations where it is dark, multiple weapons in use, shouting and complete confusion.It is terrifying. All you ry to do is keep your wife and kids out of your mind.

As a new person am I supposed to stick to the topic or answer the police bashing? Thanking all of you in advance.

Eki

28th February 2012, 19:23

The first time I visited the US I heard on the news that New York City policemen had shot an unarmed man 41 times and killed him. I couldn't believe my ears:

Amidou Diallo stories (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/diallo_stories.html)

The New York Times
February 5, 1999, Friday, Late Edition - Final
SECTION: Section A; Page 1; Column 1; Metropolitan Desk
LENGTH: 1386 words
HEADLINE: Officers in Bronx Fire 41 Shots, And an Unarmed Man Is Killed
BYLINE: By MICHAEL COOPER

BODY:
An unarmed West African immigrant with no criminal record was killed early yesterday by four New York City police officers who fired 41 shots at him in the doorway of his Bronx apartment building, the police said.

Eki

28th February 2012, 19:28

I am brand new so forgive me if I stick my size 12's in it. The post above is directed at the police but the person, Eki who started the thread is speaking of a child killed by another child.

Why are we speaking of the police? I have been in situations where it is dark, multiple weapons in use, shouting and complete confusion.It is terrifying. All you ry to do is keep your wife and kids out of your mind.

As a new person am I supposed to stick to the topic or answer the police bashing? Thanking all of you in advance.

Well, the topic is about shooting. As long as you talk about shooting, you're on topic.

schmenke

28th February 2012, 19:39

Whatever happed to that incident in Florida (I think) a couple of years ago where a fellow was out for a jog in the middle of the night when he was accosted by a couple of young kids. I think a scuffle ensued and the jogger pulled out a Colt .45 automatic pistol. The two kids tried to run away but the jogger shot one of them several times in the back.
From what I remember the jogger was acquitted of any wrong-doing but the parents of the victim were trying for an appeal case.

race aficionado

28th February 2012, 19:59

This whole picture of teenagers shooting other human beings to death is wrong.

Who on this forum can defend that?

And we are not talking about a war zone here. It's a school! of all places.

It's all so stupid and all so sad.

Sent from my iPhone

slorydn1

28th February 2012, 20:19

No Eki, you wouldn't be banned for starting this thread, OK? It's completely in order to discuss this topic.
Now before everyone gets their dander up, yes there are a couple of posts missing from this thread. The poster is a banned user who keeps re-appearing under different usernames and he has been dealt with. The rest of the posts, so far seem to be ok, so just keep it clean and we'll all be allright.

Now for the topic. Yes, very sad indeed. As much as I advocate gun rights in this country I do not believe that it's ok at anytime for a minor to be in possession of a firearm. Whoever gave this child access to that firearm should be facing a very long prison sentence.

Mark

28th February 2012, 20:22

To be fair the thread title is in reference to the long standing Football thread entitled "I will probably be banned for this but...". Pino didn't expect to be banned then and I'm sure Eki doesn't expect it now!

janvanvurpa

28th February 2012, 22:09

The first time I visited the US I heard on the news that New York City policemen had shot an unarmed man 41 times and killed him. I couldn't believe my ears:

Amidou Diallo stories (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/diallo_stories.html)

They all felt threatened. They demanded ID and he pulled his wallet out and it looked like a gun.
Don't most wallets look just like guns?
So they drilled him..
The real shocker is how many total shots fired to hits considering he was less than 2-3m away..

So when ordered to do anything by any law enforcement officer, INSTANTLY respond or don't come whining here once they've killed you.

Gregor-y

28th February 2012, 23:50

As long as it's not an order to show identification (assuming it's in your wallet). But I think it will be okay if you just yell 'Catch 22' as loudly as possible.

NHSPhysician

29th February 2012, 00:23

Hello. This is certainly a serious probable that has to be addressed in the US. There is a very sad divide in your country. The most frightening aspect for me as a physician is that there are so many rational people thinking irrationally.
I spoke with a colleague recently from the US. He gave me the number in deaths, suicides, accidents and murders. They were astounding. How on earth are people , intelligent people, putting up with this loss of life and limb.
I can't say where it is I work but it is overseas as you say and the number of people killed,injured accidentally or otherwise is less than a percentage point of the numbers you experience in the US.

The amendment people speak of is when muskets were the weapon. Having read a few books on gun incidents and the 2nd amendment I do not see, nor do people from all over Europe and Asia see how it applies today. It is obvious why it was set up. People were armed in an emergency to get together with their militia. Take out the militia and there are no rights.
Thank you for allowing me add my two pence.

N4D13

29th February 2012, 01:05

I must admit that I've never understood why guns are so important for people in the US. I know that it's a part of their culture, but is it really reasonable that anyone should have access to firearms? I don't see why anyone should have access to firearms - let alone military-spec weapons - besides from policemen and people in the military.

I can't come up with a reason why it should be allowed to have a gun in your house. I've heard a lot of times that people want to have guns to defend themselves, but, in my opinion, the only reason because people would want to defend themselves is because there are too many weapons in the US. If everyone has guns, you would need them, right? But wouldn't it be just a lot safer if no-one had them? We don't have this problem in most European countries - no one seems to think that having guns at home is necessary or simply safer.

Oh, and while this last part might be off-topic, I would also like to point out that there's something which I find extremely absurd about U.S. laws, and it's that, should a burglar enter your house, you could just kill him/her on the spot and it would be totally fine. Is this reasonable? I don't think that killing someone is justified, whether they are burglars or anything else.

Rollo

29th February 2012, 05:09

Without arms, what would have happened in Tripoli, Egypt, Libya and maybe soon to be Syria?

Without arms, what DID happen in Egypt?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/14/world/middleeast/14egypt-tunisia-protests.html?_r=1
For their part, Mr. Maher and his colleagues began reading about nonviolent struggles. They were especially drawn to a Serbian youth movement called Otpor, which had helped topple the dictator Slobodan Milosevic by drawing on the ideas of an American political thinker, Gene Sharp. The hallmark of Mr. Sharp’s work is well-tailored to Mr. Mubark’s Egypt: He argues that nonviolence is a singularly effective way to undermine police states that might cite violent resistance to justify repression in the name of stability.

BBC News - Gene Sharp: Author of the nonviolent revolution rulebook (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12522848)
To do this Sharp provides in his books a list of 198 "non-violent weapons", ranging from the use of colours and symbols to mock funerals and boycotts.
Designed to be the direct equivalent of military weapons, they are techniques collated from a forensic study of defiance to tyranny throughout history.

"These non-violent weapons are very important because they give people an alternative," he says. "If people don't have these, if they can't see that they are very powerful, they will go back to violence and war every time."

It may have escaped your attention, but there was actually very little fighting in Egypt. Guns for the most part were an utter irrelevance.
Using your example of the Civil War, not only was the war illegal but it also proved to be useless because the North won.

Bob Riebe

29th February 2012, 08:15

Without arms, what DID happen in Egypt?

Egypt revolution resulted in at least 840 deaths: Amnesty report - Jurist
jurist.org/.../eqypt-revolution-resulted-in-at-least-840-deaths-amnesty...

May 19, 2011 – [JURIST] At least 840 people were killed, and more than 6000 were injured during the Egyptian revolution to oust former president Hosni ...

Mark

29th February 2012, 09:23

EuroTroll

29th February 2012, 09:32

Oh, and while this last part might be off-topic, I would also like to point out that there's something which I find extremely absurd about U.S. laws, and it's that, should a burglar enter your house, you could just kill him/her on the spot and it would be totally fine. Is this reasonable? I don't think that killing someone is justified, whether they are burglars or anything else.

I think that's reasonable. Far too many are the cases around my parts where someone is attacked -- and a burglary is an attack on you and your property --, defends himself and ends up getting a prison sentence because he used excessive force. I think that the person who instigates an illegal action, an illegal attack should face the possibility that deadly force may be used against him. And I think I should have the option of "popping a cap" in a burglar's arse. But I don't.

SGWilko

29th February 2012, 09:57

He shot him 41 times and then he killed him?!

I think he proved a stubborn sucker......? Surely. a single shot to the leg perhaps as a warning would have served as a good deterrant. 41 times is just insane.

SGWilko

29th February 2012, 10:01

I think that's reasonable. Far too many are the cases around my parts where someone is attacked -- and a burglary is an attack on you and your property --, defends himself and ends up getting a prison sentence because he used excessive force. I think that the person who instigates an illegal action, an illegal attack should face the possibility that deadly force may be used against him. And I think I should have the option of "popping a cap" in a burglar's arse. But I don't.

Well, we have the case of Tony Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)) over here.....

Eki

29th February 2012, 13:57

I can't come up with a reason why it should be allowed to have a gun in your house. I've heard a lot of times that people want to have guns to defend themselves, but, in my opinion, the only reason because people would want to defend themselves is because there are too many weapons in the US. If everyone has guns, you would need them, right? But wouldn't it be just a lot safer if no-one had them? We don't have this problem in most European countries - no one seems to think that having guns at home is necessary or simply safer.

True. If everybody has guns, then burglars just take care they have a bigger and better gun than yours or shoot you first. It's like those policemen assumed a black man was armed and shot him, the criminals may also assume that you're armed and shoot you for self defense before finding out if you really were armed or not.

chuck34

29th February 2012, 14:11

The amendment people speak of is when muskets were the weapon. Having read a few books on gun incidents and the 2nd amendment I do not see, nor do people from all over Europe and Asia see how it applies today. It is obvious why it was set up. People were armed in an emergency to get together with their militia. Take out the militia and there are no rights.
Thank you for allowing me add my two pence.

As a citizen of the State of Indiana, my Constitution says nothing about a militia, it does say that I can own a gun for personal protection.
Indiana Constitution - Article 1 (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html#sec-32)

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

So the "milita" argument holds no water.

Beyond that, don't we hear all the time (mostly from the Europeans) that we MUST respect people's cultures and customs, and that we shouldn't poke our nose's in other people's business? Shouldn't that go both ways? In the US it is part of our culture to own guns for whatever reason we want be it self protection, protection of our Country/State, hunting, sport, colection, whatever. Why is that any of your business?

chuck34

29th February 2012, 14:13

The first time I visited the US I heard on the news that New York City policemen had shot an unarmed man 41 times and killed him. I couldn't believe my ears:

Amidou Diallo stories (http://www.soc.umn.edu/~samaha/cases/diallo_stories.html)

So since the cops went crazy, we should outlaw guns for everyone? What sort of "logic" is that?

janvanvurpa

29th February 2012, 16:55

He shot him 41 times and then he killed him?!

No, there were IIRC 4 cops repeatedly emptying their Glocks, and evidently re-loading...Maybe the twitches of his body seemed threatening, or maybe they ordered him to stop twitching and the body refused so they had to use more force.

Eki

29th February 2012, 18:53

So since the cops went crazy, we should outlaw guns for everyone? What sort of "logic" is that?

If cops can't handle guns safely, how do you expect everyone else can? Shouldn't cops be outstanding citizens?

Bob Riebe

29th February 2012, 19:20

True. If everybody has guns, then burglars just take care they have a bigger and better gun than yours or shoot you first. It's like those policemen assumed a black man was armed and shot him, the criminals may also assume that you're armed and shoot you for self defense before finding out if you really were armed or not.
Eki, I see you are back to you basic fear mongering silliness based on your total ignorance of firearms and armed U.S. criminals plus the facts that exist about home owners using firearms on criminals.
Look them up before making such statement, and such silliness can be avoided. (You look them up. If you want me to, send me fifty bucks for the first hour.)

Bigger gun, hmm, I suppose he just goes down to the local car trunk salesmen and buys a larger handgun that he cannot conceal as well.
Perhaps he is well educated on firearms, as he is a graduate from the local Crim. University, where proper tool use by criminals is taught, along with machinest skills to fix them.
Of course there are the talking heads on, U.S. news that talk about the "powerful" 9mm, but if you showed them two cartridges they probably could not tell .45 from a 9mm.

Better gun.
Maybe like that silly Jolie movie, it can make the bullet curve around corners.

I do like your statement about shoot you first, that is probably why more states are eliminating the asinine law that forced home owner to flee before trying to defend themselves.
If the governor signs it it, now in Minn. when some one breaks your window to break-in, you can shoot the pos dead on the spot. No more grand jury to prove you had a reason to shoot him.
A statement like yours, makes getting such so called castle defense laws passed easier.

Sadly, police training in this country has become a sad state of affairs.
I have spoke to retired policemen who say they come out of the acadamy with storm trooper attitudes and they are taught to spray and pray rather take aimed shots.

One good thing about the castle defense laws, if cops break into the wrong home and the home owner shoots policemen dead, the blame will nowlie with the police, where before home owners were prosecuted for shooting police that broke into their homes, even if it were the werong home.

It has always bothered me that civilians that shoot a non-criminal by accident, including they thought the person was an intruder, could face some degree of manslaughter charge in some states, but police shooting the wrong person, do not face that charge.
Of course that may explain why the second amendment exists to protect us against those who work for the government.

Bob Riebe

29th February 2012, 19:22

If cops can't handle guns safely, how do you expect everyone else can? Shouldn't cops be outstanding citizens?
Policement are just simple humans like everyone else with all the failing.

Actually, prohibition in the U.S. showed they might have a few abnormal failings that come with power.

race aficionado

29th February 2012, 20:18

I'm just happy I live in a society where it is not required to own a firearm to defend myself. .... the society I live in has evolved over a long period of time.

Evolution . . . . I like that concept.

:s mokin:

chuck34

29th February 2012, 21:06

It may be an exaggeration but I can only relate to the views expressed here and the reasons people give for needing firearms. I hear all to often in the 'United States' you are free and have an old law that enables you to own a firearm. Its part of your freedom and you need them to defend your homes should the government turn nasty or armed people decide to invade or steal from your homes. If thats the case then you most definately need them. ;)

I honestly don't understand where your views are coming from. Practically no one in the US needs a firearm. It's just a nice thing to have if you are unlucky enough to be one of those 0.01% (or thereabouts) that is the victim of a home invasion. There is story after story over here about some poor sap that tried to rob an armed citizen, only to find out that the home owner had a gun. I'm willing to bet that there are more "success" stories of gun ownership than there are tragedies like the OP. But the news being the news, "if it bleeds it leads". So you hardly ever hear about the robberies/murders/rapes that have been prevented by guns.

If you are ever unlucky enough to be the victim of a home invasion (and I pray that you are not). Will you think to yourself "Thank God I don't have a gun that might go off accidentally in a one in a million freak accident", or will it be "Damn it, I wish I had a gun to stop this S-O-B!!"? I know you will answer something along the lines of "it's so improbable that it's not worth thinking about". But an accident is just as improbable, especially if everyone in your household is trained in firearm use.

And as Starter asks, where is this place that requires firearm ownership you claimed? Oh yeah it's Switzerland. What are the crime rates like there? Is it possible that guns aren't the cause of crimes????????

chuck34

29th February 2012, 21:15

I hear all to often in the 'United States' you are free and have an old law that enables you to own a firearm.

I know this may be a bit off topic, but ......

I also don't understand this mindset. Who cares if the law is old or not? Why does that matter? The right to free speech is also old, should we outlaw that one? How about the right to freely practice your religion? A free press? How about the right to a jury trial? Or the right to face your accusers? I could go on and on. Those are all "old" laws. I suppose we should just get rid of them right? Especially that pesky free speech one. I mean with the internet these days, people will just say whatever they want. We can't have that now, can we? Come one the internet wasn't even thought of in 1790, so why should the right to free speech apply to the internet?

I am completely honest in this. Why should the 2nd Amendment be thrown out simply because it is "old"? While the 1st Amendment can be kept around.

Eki

29th February 2012, 21:30

Policement are just simple humans like everyone else with all the failing.

At least here they get few years of education and training. And screening for the education and training are quite strict.

Eki

29th February 2012, 21:44

I know this may be a bit off topic, but ......

I also don't understand this mindset. Who cares if the law is old or not? Why does that matter? The right to free speech is also old, should we outlaw that one? How about the right to freely practice your religion? A free press? How about the right to a jury trial? Or the right to face your accusers? I could go on and on. Those are all "old" laws. I suppose we should just get rid of them right? Especially that pesky free speech one. I mean with the internet these days, people will just say whatever they want. We can't have that now, can we? Come one the internet wasn't even thought of in 1790, so why should the right to free speech apply to the internet?

I am completely honest in this. Why should the 2nd Amendment be thrown out simply because it is "old"? While the 1st Amendment can be kept around.
"Free" is relative. In 1790 "free" was not for women and black people, among others. Should we bring back slavery and abolish woman's right to vote just because that's the way things were in 1790?

Bob Riebe

29th February 2012, 21:51

"Free" is relative. In 1790 "free" was not for women and black people, among others. Should we bring back slavery and abolish woman's right to vote just because that's the way things were in 1790?
Let's see, you equate taking away freedoms gained, with taking or giving away a "right" granted by the founding Fathers from the get-go.

OK, what would anyone gain here by giving up these freedoms and a right?
This would serve what purpose how?

airshifter

1st March 2012, 06:08

I'm just happy I live in a society where it is not required to own a firearm to defend myself. The chances of getting shot over here are almost none existant unless you are unfortunate to be caught in some kind of gang related shooting (with illegal firearms) which is incredibly rare anyway. England, Wales and Scotland have a past which is one of the bloodiest in history, yet thankfully we have a stable country where the majority are law abiding and not living in fear of being attacked. I can appreciate we are lucky in that respect though and don't feel other countries need to de-arm themselves as the society I live in has evolved over a long period of time.

The vast majority of murders in the US that take place with a gun are also gang related, and the majority are also people under the age of 25. For the average person smart enough to stay away from bad areas there is certainly no requirement to own a gun. Nobody is required to have one, and the majority of people I know who own guns owned guns for hunting and shooting primarily, and have them for self defense if every needed. I don't think I know of a single person that purchased a gun for no use other than self defense.

Though the murder rate in the US hasn't gone down much and remains very high by the standards of developed nations, the violent crime rate has gone down quite a lot. More and more states allow concealed carry of weapons and/or various "castle" laws. Violent crime rates are substantially lower here than in the UK and most of europe for that matter. I would suggest that a criminal dealing with the possibility of confronting a person legally using a weapon to defend their persons or property would find it quite a deterrent.

Eki

1st March 2012, 07:35

I would suggest that a criminal dealing with the possibility of confronting a person legally using a weapon to defend their persons or property would find it quite a deterrent.
I don't believe that. They wouldn't be doing crimes if they believed they'll fail. It's just another factor they'll have to take into account by having guns themselves and using the element of surprise. People trying to be heroes will result people becoming dead.

Eki

1st March 2012, 07:36

Not quite true. Women had no right to vote, but there were many free blacks even then.

Did the free blacks have the right to vote?

janvanvurpa

1st March 2012, 08:40

The vast majority of murders in the US that take place with a gun are also gang related, and the majority are also people under the age of 25. For the average person smart enough to stay away from bad areas there is certainly no requirement to own a gun. Nobody is required to have one, and the majority of people I know who own guns owned guns for hunting and shooting primarily, and have them for self defense if every needed. I don't think I know of a single person that purchased a gun for no use other than self defense.

Though the murder rate in the US hasn't gone down much and remains very high by the standards of developed nations, the violent crime rate has gone down quite a lot. More and more states allow concealed carry of weapons and/or various "castle" laws. Violent crime rates are substantially lower here than in the UK and most of europe for that matter. I would suggest that a criminal dealing with the possibility of confronting a person legally using a weapon to defend their persons or property would find it quite a deterrent.

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)
Victim/Offender Relationships

Of the homicides for which law enforcement provided supplemental data to the UCR Program, the victim-offender relationship was unknown for 44.1 percent of the victims. For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances. (Based on Table 2.11.) The 2004 data also revealed that 33.0 percent of female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.7 percent of the male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. (Based on Tables 2.4 and 2.11.)

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_11)

janvanvurpa

1st March 2012, 09:12

Did the free blacks have the right to vote?

1869

Fifteenth Amendment approved. On February 26, Congress sent the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution to the states for approval. The amendment would guarantee black Americans the right to vote.

1890

African-Americans are disenfranchised. The Mississippi Plan, approved on November 1, used literacy and "understanding" tests to disenfranchise black American citizens. Similar statutes were adopted by South Carolina (1895), Louisiana (1898), North Carolina (1900), Alabama (1901), Virginia (1901), Georgia (1908), and Oklahoma (1910).

More;
Disfranchisement after Reconstruction era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disfranchisement_after_the_Civil_War)

Rollo

1st March 2012, 12:25

OK, what would anyone gain here by giving up these freedoms and a right?

A higher quality of life, liberty and happiness.

EuroTroll

1st March 2012, 12:44

A higher quality of life, liberty and happiness.

You forgot to add God's grace. :p : "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)

I think the right to bear arms is unquestionably a liberty. Which is why I can understand why many Americans are so fond of it.

race aficionado

1st March 2012, 13:33

Just imagine and pause for a moment: just imagine if we actually had a real count, the total amount of deadly fire arms that are out there amongst the general public - here on the USA for example
The number would be STAGGERING. And add to that all the new ones that are now being sold in shops, gun shows and the Internet.

A couple of yeas ago I visited an uncle of my wife in Dallas. He told us he was a deer hunter and showed us his rifle collection. When he saw our enthusiasm he started trusting us he then took us to his special room where he proceeded to show us the rest of his gun collection: from Uzzies to Magnums to sawed off shotguns and many other automatic military specked killing machines. It was surreal.
So as we see, the playing field in this country in terms if gun ownership is again, staggering.
I remember a couple of years ago when the mayor of NYC and the police had this campaign of guns for toys in Christmas time. Yes, some guns were returned with no legal penalty and some toys were given but basically it's a joke when it comes to asking people to please return their arsenal and not face police action.

So yes, here on the US of A they are armed to their teeth - legally and illegally. Makes no difference, and don't mess with their right to own one because a shooting spree could start in any moment and you don't want to be caught empty handed.

Sent from my iPhone in my bullet proof bunker

Lousada

1st March 2012, 13:44

Violent crime rates are substantially lower here than in the UK and most of europe for that matter.

Sorry, I find that a little hard to believe. Could you please give me your source for that to prove me wrong??

chuck34

1st March 2012, 13:58

My house is alarmed, the police station is a couple of miles up the road, and I have a phone next to my bed. I don't have the mindset to want to kill someone, even a burglar and house robberies in this country are not usually committed using firearms. Being in a position where in the near future I may have a child and beyond small children in the house, I wouldn't want the worry of having a firearm anywhere near them even if I had to lock it in a gun cabinet where it would be of little use in an emergency anyway.

So your plan is to let the sicko rape your wife and small children while you wait for the cops to get there from "a couple of miles up the road"? Sounds like a good plan to me :rolleyes:

Accidents do happen sure, and people in the UK get shot, but its so rare introducing guns here would do more harm than good. You could have fail-safe measures for many things in daily life. I could wear a helmet and weld a roll cage into my car incase I crash and am killed. I could build a fallout shelter in my back garden incase a nuclear war breaks out and I want a few more hours on earth. All extreme and going abit too far, but so is having a gun in my home just incase someone breaks into my house to murder me in the night. I think we have such different views on each side of the pond because we are so different. You think its daft that someone wouldn't have a gun for the possible, whereas we can't imagine live where you'd consider needing one.

No one is talking about introducing guns to the UK.

Your examples of "going too far in the name of safety", actually goes to my point as well. Why must all guns be banned in the name of safety when statistically the chance of an accident is practically insignificant?

chuck34

1st March 2012, 14:04

The age of the law is not my point.

The age of the law WAS your point, and the point of many others, otherwise why would you have said "old law". How many times has it been said in this thread and others just like it something along the lines of "that was written more than 200 years ago, it has no bearing now". Now you are claiming you didn't say anything about the age. Color me confused.

Having the freedom to give an opinion on something is very different to owning a device that can end somebodys life in a fraction of a second in my view at least.

You don't like owning a device that can end somebody's life in a fraction of a second? So you don't own any knives? How about a car? Cleaning chemicals?

I don't think owning a firearm has anything to do with freedom anyway, but would be interested in views that think it is of course

So a government coming in and telling you that you are no longer allowed to own something that 10seconds ago you could, has nothing to do with freedom? Hmmm, you have some interesting views on freedom.

chuck34

1st March 2012, 14:06

"Free" is relative. In 1790 "free" was not for women and black people, among others. Should we bring back slavery and abolish woman's right to vote just because that's the way things were in 1790?

So since women, black people, and by the way white men who didn't own property weren't allowed to vote in 1790, means that we should outlaw guns in 2012. That's a bit of a stretch, even for you Eki.

chuck34

1st March 2012, 14:09

I don't believe that. They wouldn't be doing crimes if they believed they'll fail. It's just another factor they'll have to take into account by having guns themselves and using the element of surprise.

So in societies where guns are illegal your claim is that criminals don't have guns and don't use the element of surpise when robbing someone? Seriously?

People trying to be heroes will result people becoming dead.

No people being stupid and robbing someone results in people becoming dead. It's telling that you try to make the criminal out to be the victim.

Knock-on

1st March 2012, 15:00

Sorry, I find that a little hard to believe. Could you please give me your source for that to prove me wrong??

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000.[4] The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides,[5] with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.[6]

Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States)

During 2007, nine young people lost their lives in shootings, including the killing of 11-year-old Rhys Jones in Liverpool.

According to Home Office figures, there were 59 firearms-related homicides in 2006-07 compared with 49 in the previous year. That is an increase of 18% in just one year. There were 507 serious injuries from firearms - more than one incident a day.

But at the same time, the trend in gun crime overall has been going down.

BBC News - Analysis: UK gun crime figures (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6960431.stm)

Population of US is 311m and UK is 62m or 1/5th

I don't know if a UK homicide includes suicides but will give you the benefit of the doubt nd assume it doesn't therefore the gun rate in the US for deliberate homicide is over 4200% higher per capita population than that of the UK.

Knock-on

1st March 2012, 15:05

So in societies where guns are illegal your claim is that criminals don't have guns and don't use the element of surpise when robbing someone? Seriously?

No people being stupid and robbing someone results in people becoming dead. It's telling that you try to make the criminal out to be the victim.

In the US, guns are freely availiable and in the UK, they are not. You are 4200% more likely to die as a victim of gun homocide in the US as we are in the UK.

That's stupid isn't it? You 'innocent' legal gun holders in the US are the victims and you have our pity. No arguement, no point scoring or anything. I just feel a bit sorry for you and you're generally too blind to see it.

Knock-on

1st March 2012, 15:12

It's still legal to shoot a Welshman with a Bow and Arrow within the city of Chester after midnight.

As it's St Davids day, I'm off to do my good deed for the day :D (Sorry Garry, you're first :D )

Eki

1st March 2012, 15:27

So since women, black people, and by the way white men who didn't own property weren't allowed to vote in 1790, means that we should outlaw guns in 2012. That's a bit of a stretch, even for you Eki.
No, it's just an example that times change and constitutions should change with them.

EuroTroll

1st March 2012, 16:01

Dydd Gwyl Dewi Sant hapus !

Is that Welsh for "my hovercraft is full of eels"?

chuck34

1st March 2012, 16:18

In the US, guns are freely availiable and in the UK, they are not. You are 4200% more likely to die as a victim of gun homocide in the US as we are in the UK.

That's stupid isn't it? You 'innocent' legal gun holders in the US are the victims and you have our pity. No arguement, no point scoring or anything. I just feel a bit sorry for you and you're generally too blind to see it.

Do you think that if the US was to completely outlaw guns today, that the homocide rate will change one iota?

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)
Let's take a look at Switzerland.
Guns in circulation = 1.2-3million, population = 7.6million, ownership % = 16-40%
killings or attempted killings 34
percentage of population = 0.0004%

Now let's compare that to the US
Gun Ownership and Use in America (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx)
ownership = 30%, about the same as Switzerland percentage wise
population = 311million
killings or attempted killings (from your post) = 75684,
percentage of population = 0.02%

Therefore you are much more likely to be involved in a gun crime in the US than Switzerland even though the percentage of gun ownership is about equal percentage wise in both countries. Perhaps it isn't the guns that are the problem?

schmenke

1st March 2012, 16:29

No, it's just an example that times change and constitutions should change with them.

Which is the very reason that the U.S. Constitution incorporated the amendment process in the first place, to accommodate the changing requirements of the nation as it evolved with time. An Amendment can be dropped just as it can be adopted.

schmenke

1st March 2012, 16:31

Interesting statistics here on private firearms ownership in the U.S. based on a national survey conducted in 2004:

The US gun stock: results from the 2004 national firearms survey -- Hepburn et al. 13 (1): 15 -- Injury Prevention (http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/13/1/15.full)

A few tidbits for those who can't be bothered to read the entire article:

"...38% of households and 26% of individuals reported owning at least one firearm. This corresponds to 42 million US households with firearms, and 57 million adult gun owners. ..."

"... A clear pattern that has emerged over the past several decades from these surveys is a persistent decline in household gun ownership..."

"...estimated that there were 192 million working firearms in the US in private hands. ..."

"... When respondents were asked, “What is the one most important reason that you own a handgun/long gun?” the most common response among those who owned a handgun was for self-defense (46%)..."

race aficionado

1st March 2012, 16:41

schmenke

1st March 2012, 16:41

Not quite true. Women had no right to vote, but there were many free blacks even then.

Not to turn this into a history lesson but a bit of googling reveals that the U.S. population in 1790 was approximately 3.9 million including ~700,000 black slaves, or 18% of the total.

Malbec

1st March 2012, 16:41

Therefore you are much more likely to be involved in a gun crime in the US than Switzerland even though the percentage of gun ownership is about equal percentage wise in both countries. Perhaps it isn't the guns that are the problem?

Switzerland and the US aren't directly comparable. For a start Americans only own guns through choice. Many Swiss don't.

schmenke

1st March 2012, 16:54

chuck34

1st March 2012, 17:20

Switzerland and the US aren't directly comparable. For a start Americans only own guns through choice. Many Swiss don't.

Very true.

Caution when using Switzerland in firearms statistics comparisons.

The statistics may be skewed by the fact that military service is compulsory in the country, with military-issued firearm possession a requirement for continued mandatory national guard service. Servicemen/women are required to keep their military equipment, including firearm, after completion of their mandatory service. This is why the private firearms ownership ratio is unusualy high for the country.

Why is Switzerland not a valid comparison? The theme here seems to be that if you own a gun that you are either going to be killed by it, or kill someone using it. Therefore all guns must be outlawed. So I simply point to a country with about the same gun ownership percentage, but a much lower crime rate. Thus proving that it isn't the gun that is the problem, it's the people. What is invalid about that?

Malbec

1st March 2012, 17:28

Why is Switzerland not a valid comparison? The theme here seems to be that if you own a gun that you are either going to be killed by it, or kill someone using it. Therefore all guns must be outlawed. So I simply point to a country with about the same gun ownership percentage, but a much lower crime rate. Thus proving that it isn't the gun that is the problem, it's the people. What is invalid about that?

Your own text that you cut and pasted from elsewhere refers not to guns owned in Switzerland but guns in circulation. This is because many Swiss men are issued submachine guns and assault rifles as part of their compulsory national military service which are stored at home until the men are in their 30s and 40s.

As such their mentality towards the weapons in their possession is likely to be different from Americans who make a clear choice as to whether they own a gun or not, and what type.

If you wish to skew stats to your advantage perhaps you should consider that the rate for gun usage in domestic violence incidents in Switzerland, and the number of domestic violence killings that result are the highest in Europe. This is most likely a result of the wide availability of high power firearms in homes around Switzerland.

janvanvurpa

1st March 2012, 17:29

Very true.

Caution when using Switzerland in firearms statistics comparisons.

The statistics may be skewed by the fact that military service is compulsory in the country, with military-issued firearm possession a requirement for continued mandatory national guard service. Servicemen/women are required to keep their military equipment, including firearm, after completion of their mandatory service. This is why the private firearms ownership ratio is unusualy high for the country.

The hardest part is the shockingly high rate of "murder the whole family and then suicide cause i lost my job" in Schweiz...compared with they typical Euro nearly nothing rate.
I forget what the term is the Swiss have for it but it is a cliche now. (So it makes it hard to find more than just individual news stories--in German)
But the shocking frequency belies the standard "I's jest repeating crap I herard somebody else repeat" schmalz .
The do use their service weapons and wipe out everybody...

race aficionado

1st March 2012, 17:32

Why is Switzerland not a valid comparison? The theme here seems to be that if you own a gun that you are either going to be killed by it, or kill someone using it. Therefore all guns must be outlawed. So I simply point to a country with about the same gun ownership percentage, but a much lower crime rate. Thus proving that it isn't the gun that is the problem, it's the people. What is invalid about that?

My sister lives in Switzerland, married a swiss man and has 2 swiss children. Her husband and both children had their mandatory military service that went on for years.
Their military gear was at home in those days (this was many years ago) and I remember being told that Switzerland, a neutral peaceful country, had an army that would be ready for action faster than any other country precisely because they knew where to go in when called upon, uniform, weapons et all.

I even imagined a tank parked in someones garage - him being the guy that drives the tank to battle, :p

Apples and oranges here -no comparison what so ever. And i'm not saying that deaths cannot happen in Switzerland because of gun use, there probably has, and again, no comparison what so ever.

schmenke

1st March 2012, 17:33

SGWilko

1st March 2012, 17:41

Dydd Gwyl Dewi Sant hapus !

Tidy, is it?

Knock-on

1st March 2012, 17:59

Do you think that if the US was to completely outlaw guns today, that the homocide rate will change one iota?

Gun politics in Switzerland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland)
Let's take a look at Switzerland.
Guns in circulation = 1.2-3million, population = 7.6million, ownership % = 16-40%
killings or attempted killings 34
percentage of population = 0.0004%

Now let's compare that to the US
Gun Ownership and Use in America (http://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx)
ownership = 30%, about the same as Switzerland percentage wise
population = 311million
killings or attempted killings (from your post) = 75684,
percentage of population = 0.02%

Therefore you are much more likely to be involved in a gun crime in the US than Switzerland even though the percentage of gun ownership is about equal percentage wise in both countries. Perhaps it isn't the guns that are the problem?

For the reasons posted by others, it is evident that there is a difference in attitude to gun ownership between the two Countries. Perhaps Americas gun obsession and paranoia are evidence of a national mentality that still partly wants to be John Wayne or Rambo. This is evidence when the subject of criminalising gun ownership crops up and the mass hysteria that ensues by Americans that see this as a threat to their liberty.

America has a lot of social problems and this is part of the cause of the frightening gun crime statistics. However, it would be naive to blame the gun problem on just the criminals without looking a little deeper.

America isn't at a point where Britain might invade and set King George back in parliment. Your constitution needs to reflect the maturing of your Country and the population need to begin changing with it.

chuck34

1st March 2012, 18:53

For the reasons posted by others, it is evident that there is a difference in attitude to gun ownership between the two Countries. Perhaps Americas gun obsession and paranoia are evidence of a national mentality that still partly wants to be John Wayne or Rambo. This is evidence when the subject of criminalising gun ownership crops up and the mass hysteria that ensues by Americans that see this as a threat to their liberty.

So then let's force everyone to own a gun then???? That'll make it all better. I am really struggling to follow your logic. On the one hand you say that the gun is the problem, so let's outlaw them. Then when faced with the fact that other countries have just as many gun, you say the problem is with "private" ownership, or that it's the attitude of the owner.

And again you are going to claim that the government coming in and making illegal something that was legal 10seconds ago, is somehow NOT a threat to liberty?

America has a lot of social problems and this is part of the cause of the frightening gun crime statistics. However, it would be naive to blame the gun problem on just the criminals without looking a little deeper.

That's precisely what I'm saying. The problem is not owning a gun at all, the problems are many and diverse and mostly socio-economic. Owning a gun legally is NOT a problem, so what is the rational behind outlawing them?

America isn't at a point where Britain might invade and set King George back in parliment. Your constitution needs to reflect the maturing of your Country and the population need to begin changing with it.

Why? The VAST majority of people that own guns are responsible and will never use them to commit a crime? So what reason do you have for making them all criminals tomorrow by outlawing gun ownership?

chuck34

1st March 2012, 18:57

My sister lives in Switzerland, married a swiss man and has 2 swiss children. Her husband and both children had their mandatory military service that went on for years.
Their military gear was at home in those days (this was many years ago) and I remember being told that Switzerland, a neutral peaceful country, had an army that would be ready for action faster than any other country precisely because they knew where to go in when called upon, uniform, weapons et all.

I even imagined a tank parked in someones garage - him being the guy that drives the tank to battle, :p

Apples and oranges here -no comparison what so ever. And i'm not saying that deaths cannot happen in Switzerland because of gun use, there probably has, and again, no comparison what so ever.

How can you possibly say there is no comparison? People prattle on about how having a gun at home is so dangerous, that somehow everyone who has a gun at home is going to kill themselves and others. But a large portion of the Swiss population has guns at home, with MUCH lower crime rates. So where is the link saying that if you have a gun at home it will necessarily be dangerous?

race aficionado

1st March 2012, 19:22

How can you possibly say there is no comparison? People prattle on about how having a gun at home is so dangerous, that somehow everyone who has a gun at home is going to kill themselves and others. But a large portion of the Swiss population has guns at home, with MUCH lower crime rates. So where is the link saying that if you have a gun at home it will necessarily be dangerous?

We are talking about 2 completely different cultures here.

apples and oranges.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 19:43

A higher quality of life, liberty and happiness.You have more liberty by having freedom and rights removed.
Ah liberal big-brother think.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 19:49

You forgot to add God's grace. :p : "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword. (Matthew 26:52, King James Version)

I think the right to bear arms is unquestionably a liberty. Which is why I can understand why many Americans are so fond of it.

384.Luke 22:36
He (Jesus) said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

schmenke

1st March 2012, 19:50

We are talking about 2 completely different cultures here.
....

Not to mention the fact that the Swiss ownership is largely by trained military personnel for military purposes. This, in my opinion, cannot be construed as “private” ownership as compared with the posession of a firearm by an ordinary civilian.

schmenke

1st March 2012, 19:55

You have more liberty by having freedom and rights removed.
....

Liberty to me is the ability to live in a society where citizens don’t feel the need to arm themselves because of fear of oppression from the government :) .

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 19:55

No, it's just an example that times change and constitutions should change with them.What has changed, men still rape women, men still murder men and women, governments still force populaces to do as they want not what the people want, what has changed.
Nothing, never has, never will.
The people who wrote the Constitution realized that making firearm ownership a right, not a priviledge.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 19:59

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 20:03

America isn't at a point where Britain might invade and set King George back in parliment. Your constitution needs to reflect the maturing of your Country and the population need to begin changing with it.The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from our government.
The presidencies of Bush and Obama show that need has never gone away.

schmenke

1st March 2012, 20:08

What has changed ....

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.
...

:mark:

race aficionado

1st March 2012, 20:09

You need protection from your government? Use the power of the VOTE and forget about your gun(s).

Sent from my iPhone in my bullet proof bunker

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 20:11

Too right. People who feel the need to arm themselves are not free, they are scared.
People who fail to arm themselves in the face of a threat, are not free, they are stupid.

race aficionado

1st March 2012, 20:21

Bob. What are you afraid of?

Sent from my iPhone in my bullet proof bunker

Rollo

1st March 2012, 20:24

You have more liberty by having freedom and rights removed.
Ah liberal big-brother think.

What use is one's Liberty if your Life itself is removed. The entire culture of American society itself has been shaped on the premise that people need guns.

It was an exceptionally muggy night last night in Sydney. It was 86° at 12:30am and raining. I left the back to open and only the screen door shut to keep the cats inside. I don't honestly expect that you'd be able to do that in the US.

Firstgear

1st March 2012, 20:28

.............This is because many Swiss men are issued submachine guns and assault rifles as part of their compulsory national military service which are stored at home until the men are in their 30..........
If this is the case, could it be that the large number of handguns in the US are the reason behind the difference in the stats between the two countries?
It's alot easier for a criminal or gangster to be walking the streets with a handgun than a rifle. If the Swiss were allowed to carry concealed weapons like people are in the US (or if handguns were as prolific as in the US), maybe the stats between the two would be similar.

Rollo

1st March 2012, 20:34

The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect us from our government.
The presidencies of Bush and Obama show that need has never gone away.

The presidencies of Bush and Obama show that the American people implicitly and expressly believe in and trust their government. If you as a people were really that worried about "the tyranny of government" then why hasn't there been armed protests against it? How do you think that would actually work, sending a militia in to fight against Washington? How would a private militia fare against a fully mechanised and mobilised force worth $548bn/year in running costs?

Legally, what power do you have to rise up against the government anyway?
Article 3, Section 3 of the United States Constitution.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attained.

The states have no right to secede, as held in Texas v White 1869:
"the Constitution did not permit states to secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null"
So if states can not seceed from the Union, then what chance does the individual have when it comes to rising up against "Tyrannical Goverment"?

The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.

janvanvurpa

1st March 2012, 20:42

Or perhaps they are just unlucky if they find themselves in that situation in the first place. Arming yourself just in case you happen to be robbed or attacked with a firearm is just total madness where I am from. Where would I keep this gun just in case anyway? In my car, hall, lounge, kitchen, bedroom, childrens bedroom, garage?

The matter is even crazier when you think that the only way to really be certain that your gun will be effective is to basically ambush the baddie. Choose your position in good cover, wait till the baddie is in a distance where you can drop them with the first shot...not a firefight like all the John Waynes imagine.
In other words not as defensive weapons when the baddie already has his heater out, so basically it only would be effective if every time somebody knocks at the door, you send a few rounds thru the door at a little less than chest height, wait a second--cuase the baddie was probably standing to the side---then 2-4 rounds thru the door (cause after the first salvo, the baddie is probably now in front of the door ready to kick in in. The first 2 rounds were just a feint...)

Of get even bigger gun that you know will go right thru the wall and send 2 rounds thru the wall on each side of the door.

Simple.

then open the door to see who it was.

race aficionado

1st March 2012, 20:43

. . . .The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.

Ouch! :blackeye:

:s mokin:

schmenke

1st March 2012, 21:23

... I don't honestly expect that you'd be able to do that in the US.

What, leave the cats inside? :p :

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 22:53

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.
...

:mark: Not one of those has one single thing to do with why we have the Second Amendmnet or firearms.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 22:58

You need protection from your government? Use the power of the VOTE and forget about your gun(s).
That does what good when the government appoints Supreme Court judges not to defend the Constitution but to make it say what the Administration says?

Judges are appointed for life.
Those who ridiculed Gingrich for his statement on judges are either morons, or at best, socialists who realize how dangerous such a presidency, who defines the Supreme Court as just one part of the Federal Government, also subject to the will of the people, would be to their socialist engineering.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:01

Bob. What are you afraid of?
Nothing as it stands, nor do I intend to let things ride till I have reason to be.

Any one who waits till misery, evil or the enemy has arrived is a fool who deserves anything either of the tree can bring down on that one's life.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:13

What use is one's Liberty if your Life itself is removed. The entire culture of American society itself has been shaped on the premise that people need guns.

That is where you rhetoric falls apart.
It is based on the premise that they have the right to have or not to have as they see fit, not as any government force of any type should be able to decide.

I know people who have tens to dozens of firearms, most of which have not been fired nor ever will be.
Many of the ones unfired, both rifle and handgun, are the ones that make bullet proof vests worthless but would work well on a Cape Bufflalo.

I fired a 20mm Solothurn anti-tank rifle that was for sale, with ammunition.
IF I had the, substantial, money for the rifle, all I would have to do is pay the two hundred dollars, file the paperwork and I could take it home and have it sitting fully-loaded in the living room should I so decide.

If I filed the proper paper work, payed the four figure permit fee, I could buy and sell without the two hundred dollar fee, most any military/poliice weapon I could afford, at prices a minimum of one half of those payed by people without that permit.
There is a pilot in the U.S. who recently recieved ATF permissiom tp have fully functional machines gun in the wings of his WWII fighter.
Even in the comparative sad state we are in, God bless the fact I live in the U.S. of A.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:18

The matter is even crazier when you think that the only way to really be certain that your gun will be effective is to basically ambush the baddie. Choose your position in good cover, wait till the baddie is in a distance where you can drop them with the first shot...not a firefight like all the John Waynes imagine.
In other words not as defensive weapons when the baddie already has his heater out, so basically it only would be effective if every time somebody knocks at the door, you send a few rounds thru the door at a little less than chest height, wait a second--cuase the baddie was probably standing to the side---then 2-4 rounds thru the door (cause after the first salvo, the baddie is probably now in front of the door ready to kick in in. The first 2 rounds were just a feint...)

Of get even bigger gun that you know will go right thru the wall and send 2 rounds thru the wall on each side of the door.

Simple.

then open the door to see who it was.Any one who would be that stupid deserves to be shot dead by the baddie, fortunately such fairy tale things are just that fairy tales created by liberals.

At the same time, when as a landlord I was threatened with firearm violence in front of the police we had called, I asked later how long I had to wait if he was serious.
The police officer said shoot him through the door.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:24

The actual implications if what you've just said is that the actions of Timothy McVeigh were in fact justified because he thought he was doing precisely as you suggested.The winner of ANY conflict determines what is, or is not, just.

He lost.

At the same time, Koresh lost, but in the aftermath, a great deal more than a few peole, believe the government was the evil agressor in that case.
Of course when the Feds. burn alive women and children, it is not hard to see why.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:30

Rollo

1st March 2012, 23:31

The winner of ANY conflict determines what is, or is not, just.
He lost.

Would you say that the courts acted justly?

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:33

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.
...

:mark:

I said in a previous post none of those apply, number three does and what you said is bs.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:36

Would you say that the courts acted justly?Yes -but honetly only if Muslim terrorists convicted, related to attacks that caused death, also recieved the same sentence,

Rollo

1st March 2012, 23:37

Not one of those has one single thing to do with why we have the Second Amendmnet or firearms.

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The USA is no longer lacking a full-time, standing armed force.
The USA no longer lives in fear from invasion by the British, French or any other foreign nation.
The USA no longer is subject to internal fragmentation resulting in potential armed conflict.
The USA no longer lacks regulated law enforcement.

schmenke's argument is that "A well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state". I think that's entirely fair and reasonable. Every single one of those statements has to do with the first clause of Second Amendment.

Bob Riebe

1st March 2012, 23:58

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia , being necessary to the security of a free state , the right of the people to keep and bear arms , shall not be infringed.

schmenke's argument is that "A well regulated militia" is no longer "necessary to the security of a free state". I think that's entirely fair and reasonable. Every single one of those statements has to do with the first clause of Second Amendment.
The National Guard, which is legally under the control of each Governor of a State or Territory, is considered the modern equivalent of a militia.
As happened in the civil war, if this country had another full scale internal war, it would probably not be just private firearms against the military.
They are called civilian soldiers, and will choose their own masters.

The militia statement is a separate point from the right of the people to keep and bear arm but both are addressed by the closing statement-- SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Only bearing arms is an absolute right.
The Supreme Court made that absolute definition just recently. To do otherwise makes grammar in law worthless.

The commas that separates the militia from the right to keep and bear arms and from "shall not be infringed" makes them separate points.

Rollo

2nd March 2012, 00:30

The National Guard, which is legally under the control of each Governor of a State or Territory, is considered the modern equivalent of a militia.

No. It does not:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The commas that separates the militia from the right to keep and bear arms and from "shall not be infringed" makes them separate points.

So what? Big fat deal:

Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co. - 105 U.S. 77 (1881) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/105/77/case.html)
Section 49 of chapter 37, Rev.Stat. Ill., 1874 (p. 332), is to be construed as if there was no comma between the words "to hear and determine motions" and the words "to dissolve injunctions." Punctuation is no part of a statute.

Even if your statement were to be true, several versions of the constitution have two, three or even five commas. The statute must be read as a whole. schmenke's argument still is completely valid.

Bob Riebe

2nd March 2012, 01:00

No. It does not:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311)
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So what? Big fat deal:

Hammock v. Loan & Trust Co. - 105 U.S. 77 (1881) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center (http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/105/77/case.html)
Section 49 of chapter 37, Rev.Stat. Ill., 1874 (p. 332), is to be construed as if there was no comma between the words "to hear and determine motions" and the words "to dissolve injunctions." Punctuation is no part of a statute.

Even if your statement were to be true, several versions of the constitution have two, three or even five commas. The statute must be read as a whole. schmenke's argument still is completely valid.
I said-- CONSIDERED-- and on your second point the U.S. Supreme Court says you and he are WRONG.

You forgot this:

(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Rollo

2nd March 2012, 01:49

I said-- CONSIDERED-- and on your second point the U.S. Supreme Court says you and he are WRONG.

Where? Considering, I've just shown you a Supreme Court case proving otherwise. Please provide proof.

airshifter

2nd March 2012, 06:07

Sorry, I find that a little hard to believe. Could you please give me your source for that to prove me wrong??

Even the newspapers in the Euro region will give you that information. UK is violent crime capital of Europe - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5712573/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html)

You can use just about any database and the robbery, assault, rape, property crimes, etc are higher in most of Eurpope than they are in the US. From what I can find the rates are falling faster in the US also. The murder rate is the one place that the US lags in.

airshifter

2nd March 2012, 06:48

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html)
Victim/Offender Relationships

Of the homicides for which law enforcement provided supplemental data to the UCR Program, the victim-offender relationship was unknown for 44.1 percent of the victims. For the incidents in which the relationships were known, 76.8 percent of the victims knew their killers and 23.2 percent were slain by strangers. Among the incidents in which the victims knew their killers, 29.8 percent were murdered by family members and 70.2 percent were killed by acquaintances. (Based on Table 2.11.) The 2004 data also revealed that 33.0 percent of female victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, and 2.7 percent of the male victims were slain by their wives or girlfriends. (Based on Tables 2.4 and 2.11.)

Murder - Crime in the United States 2004 (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html#table2_11)

That data hasn't changed much in recent years, but the data within the expanded databases shows a much larger view of the overall picture.

FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/violent-crime/murdermain)

In particular if one views the racial profiles and the Metropolitan Statistical Areas, it becomes obvious where the majority of violent crime takes place. FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/table-6)
If essentially any gang related area is compared the rates rise substantially over other areas.

On an overall basis, crime rates in the US have been dropping for years.

FBI (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/standard-links/national-data)

More and more states are allowed concealed carry permits and various "castle" laws, which also extend to vehicles in a number of states now. If guns are the cause of so many crimes, why are the crime rates dropping when legal gun ownership laws are becoming more relaxed?

janvanvurpa

2nd March 2012, 07:57

T
More and more states are allowed concealed carry permits and various "castle" laws, which also extend to vehicles in a number of states now. If guns are the cause of so many crimes, why are the crime rates dropping when legal gun ownership laws are becoming more relaxed?

Who said "guns are the cause of so many crimes"? Not me.. false argument F- (I have said that the ready availability of handguns allows even the laziest, and stupidest, meth-ed out or drunken fool or paranoid civilian or the memeber of the Gang in Blue to rapidly escalate a situation to deadly levels....

Just today in my city a totem pole was raised in memorium to an old local woodcarver---who like me was somewhat deaf---who was murdered by some 27 year old punk who decided in about 7 seconds from when jumped out of his car and shouted 3 times in 3 second STOP, that this old guy facing away needed to die and in cold blood shot (5 or 6 shots) the guy down...The Police oversight Committee said it was a bad shooting. And, of course, the cop was allowed to resign..)
Too rapid escalation to fatal levels...

Correlation does not imply causation... another false argument. F-

It could just as likely be rising global temperature and decreasing number of pirates worldwide since the 1600s.
http://montaraventures.com/pix/piratestats.jpg
Oh wait, that was the poof the the FSM was the creator of the Universe.

chuck34

2nd March 2012, 13:33

Just today in my city a totem pole was raised in memorium to an old local woodcarver---who like me was somewhat deaf---who was murdered by some 27 year old punk who decided in about 7 seconds from when jumped out of his car and shouted 3 times in 3 second STOP, that this old guy facing away needed to die and in cold blood shot (5 or 6 shots) the guy down...The Police oversight Committee said it was a bad shooting. And, of course, the cop was allowed to resign..)
Too rapid escalation to fatal levels...

So you are arguing for the police to not be armed?????

chuck34

2nd March 2012, 13:35

chuck34

2nd March 2012, 13:39

Did you forget what the Second Amendment actually says:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

What about the Indiana State Constitution that says:

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
Is your argument that I, as a citizen of the State of Indiana, can only own a gun for militia purposes? Or can I own one for personal protection?

airshifter

2nd March 2012, 15:19

Who said "guns are the cause of so many crimes"? Not me.. false argument F- (I have said that the ready availability of handguns allows even the laziest, and stupidest, meth-ed out or drunken fool or paranoid civilian or the memeber of the Gang in Blue to rapidly escalate a situation to deadly levels....

Just today in my city a totem pole was raised in memorium to an old local woodcarver---who like me was somewhat deaf---who was murdered by some 27 year old punk who decided in about 7 seconds from when jumped out of his car and shouted 3 times in 3 second STOP, that this old guy facing away needed to die and in cold blood shot (5 or 6 shots) the guy down...The Police oversight Committee said it was a bad shooting. And, of course, the cop was allowed to resign..)
Too rapid escalation to fatal levels...

Correlation does not imply causation... another false argument. F-

It could just as likely be rising global temperature and decreasing number of pirates worldwide since the 1600s.
http://montaraventures.com/pix/piratestats.jpg
Oh wait, that was the poof the the FSM was the creator of the Universe.

I was simply citing statistics concerning the point I made, that you then added the relationship information to. As for the correlation/causation, once again I agree. Crime rates were on the decline before most of these gun laws changed. But as such it seems to indicate that the issue was not one of guns, but influenced by other factors.

As for the cop shooting an innocent, this happens all too often. I personally think that if laws are stricter concerning crimes against cops than the inverse should apply. It is a double standard that punishes people to a greater degree for many actions against a cop, but when a cop does something wrong they are less accountable. This should IMO also apply to crimes much less severe than shooting someone, such as traffic violations.

airshifter

10th March 2012, 00:27

Here's a twist to gun laws....

Here in Virginia legislation was introduced to allow for the "castle doctrine". The bill passed the House and Senate, but was then killed at the request of the original sponsor. It seems that even pro gun groups were unhappy with the wording of the bill, and made it clear that they wanted proper and clear wording that described when the use of deadly force was justified and would not face civil or criminal liability.

Supporters seek more power in 'castle doctrine' bill | HamptonRoads.com | PilotOnline.com (http://hamptonroads.com/2012/03/va-lawmakers-spike-castle-doctrine-bills)

Eki

10th March 2012, 13:01

Apparently in Kennesaw, Georgia it's illegal for homeowners not to own a gun, unless they are convicted felons, conscientious objectors or disabled:

Bored.com - Dumb and Crazy Laws (http://www.bored.com/crazylaws/)

• A Kennesaw, Ga. law makes it illegal for every homeowner not to own a gun, unless you are a convicted felon, conscientious objector or disabled.

This Georgian law makes more sense:

• Donkeys may not be kept in bathtubs.

I hope donkeys are allowed to sponge bath or shower instead. Nobody likes a smelly donkey.

Eki

10th March 2012, 13:05

In Maine,they truly believe the US hasn't changed since the Constitution was signed:

• Shotguns are required to be taken to church in the event of a Native American attack.

Minnesota:

• Any person over the age of 12 may have a license for a handgun as long as he/she has not been convicted of a felony.

I can see a 12 year old applying for a gun license:

License giver: "Have you ever been convicted of a felony?"

12 year old: "Not yet. I need a gun first"

License giver: "OK, here's your license."

Eki

11th March 2012, 10:08

Some people are trying to make sure the operation in Afghanistan will fail:

Fox News - Breaking News Updates | Latest News Headlines | Photos & News Videos (http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/03/11/us-service-member-detained-for-allegedly-shooting-afghan-civilians-nato-says/#ixzz1ommuC4Oo?test=latestnews)

A U.S. service member came out of his base in southern Afghanistan on Sunday and started shooting Afghan civilians, the provincial governor said.
People were both killed and wounded in the shooting spree in Panjwai district of Kandahar province, Gov. Tooryalai Wesa told reporters, though he did not provide numbers.

NATO forces spokesman Justin Brockhoff said a U.S. service member had been detained as the alleged shooter but did not provide details on the incident. He said the coalition had reports of "multiple wounded" but none killed. The wounded were receiving treatment at NATO medical facilities, he said.
The service member was being held at a NATO base and U.S. forces are investigating the shooting in cooperation with Afghan authorities, Brockhoff said. He said it was not clear if the alleged shooter knew the victims.
The shooting comes after weeks of tense relations between U.S. forces and their Afghan hosts following the burning of Korans and other religious materials at an American base. Though U.S. officials apologized and said the burning was an accident, the incident sparked violent protests and attacks that killed some 30 people. Six U.S. troops have been killed in attacks by their supposed Afghan colleagues since the Koran burnings came to light.

ioan

11th March 2012, 12:50

ioan

11th March 2012, 12:51

Roamy

11th March 2012, 17:48

Well put.
If no one had weapons they would have a much safer country, just like we have in Europe.
The hysteria about terrorism and Patriot Act and what not just added another layer in the minds of people who already were convinced that they need weapons.

Well you have finally convinced me! I am ditching all my hand guns and taking up PETN - It is way easier and you don't have to aim

anthonyvop

11th March 2012, 23:25

If no one had weapons they would have a much safer country, just like we have in Europe.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/images/blitzinpoland.gif

http://www.iamgeorgian.org/wp-content/gallery/gori/georgia_war05.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/world/gallery/2008/jul/22/serbia/GD8112635@(FILES)-Forensic-expe-1559.jpg

http://www.monografias.com/trabajos50/terrorismo-internacional/Image2647.jpg

Yep.....Safe place Europe with all those gun control laws.

BDunnell

11th March 2012, 23:35

Yep.....Safe place Europe with all those gun control laws.

And with you coming to Europe with a firearm not licenced for use over here, and proceeding to brandish it. Allegedly.

Eki

11th March 2012, 23:35

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/images/blitzinpoland.gif

http://www.iamgeorgian.org/wp-content/gallery/gori/georgia_war05.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/world/gallery/2008/jul/22/serbia/GD8112635@(FILES)-Forensic-expe-1559.jpg

http://www.monografias.com/trabajos50/terrorismo-internacional/Image2647.jpg

Yep.....Safe place Europe with all those gun control laws.

What do gun control laws got to do with those pictures? In the Finnish civil war the Red Guard got guns from Russia and the White Guard from Sweden and Germany. No licenses asked.

I'm sure the Cuban revolutionaries weren't using just their own personal guns they had stockpiled freely before the revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

BDunnell

11th March 2012, 23:37

What do gun control laws got to do with those pictures? In the Finnish civil war the Red Guard got guns from Russia and the White Guard from Sweden and Germany. No licenses asked.

That too. Might be a bit nuanced for Tony to grasp, though. It's just word association with him.

ioan

12th March 2012, 00:59

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/nazioccupation/images/blitzinpoland.gif

http://www.iamgeorgian.org/wp-content/gallery/gori/georgia_war05.jpg

http://static.guim.co.uk/Guardian/world/gallery/2008/jul/22/serbia/GD8112635@(FILES)-Forensic-expe-1559.jpg

http://www.monografias.com/trabajos50/terrorismo-internacional/Image2647.jpg

Yep.....Safe place Europe with all those gun control laws.

How smart to compare war with peaceful times.
What about 2011 Europe vs 2011 USA? Doesn't quite float your boat, eh?

BDunnell

12th March 2012, 01:00

What do gun control laws got to do with those pictures? In the Finnish civil war the Red Guard got guns from Russia and the White Guard from Sweden and Germany. No licenses asked.

I'm sure the Cuban revolutionaries weren't using just their own personal guns they had stockpiled freely before the revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

By the way, can you imagine any European being so silly as to attempt to argue that the US is a violent society using images of the Civil War? This is the equivalent of what Tony is seeking to do here.

(Oh, and Tony — I look forward to your predictably witless response of 'yes'.)

anthonyvop

12th March 2012, 03:36

That too. Might be a bit nuanced for Tony to grasp, though. It's just word association with him.

The Nuance is that more people have been murdered under the specter of restrictive gun control laws in Europe than all those killed by guns owned by private citizens in the USA. I guess I was too subtle.....

And once again I will point out that I reject any notion that people like you can restrict my right to defend myself, my family, my friends and my property as I see fit. My mere possession of a firearm doesn't violate anyone else right so you have nobody else has the right to restrict it.

So this discussion is over which releases you to tell other people how they can live their lives.

donKey jote

12th March 2012, 04:00

another fine example of google ads
http://i41.tinypic.com/6zy0k7.jpg

google must think I'm a completely different person based on my texan ip :laugh:

airshifter

12th March 2012, 04:02

What do gun control laws got to do with those pictures? In the Finnish civil war the Red Guard got guns from Russia and the White Guard from Sweden and Germany. No licenses asked.

I'm sure the Cuban revolutionaries weren't using just their own personal guns they had stockpiled freely before the revolution. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Those photos show what can happen when guns are taken from law abiding citizens. Here in the US criminals will have guns regardless. Why should be take guns from those that legally own them and use them much more often to stop crime than to commit a crime?

As I've shown earlier in the thread, if anyone actually looks at the FBI database information the vast majority of gun related murders in the US are thugs on thugs, mostly in inner cities, and very rarely legal gun owners.

Roamy

12th March 2012, 07:03

Well hopefully soon the Castle Doctrine will be a federal statute and we can work on more laws for decent citizens - Like the 20 ft rule - you guys are smart enough to figure that one out. I would hope it has changed now but I recall not two long ago I arrived at CDG airport and there were signs everywhere warning you about pick pockets and bag thieves. Walking between terminals was a hassle. I don't think we have any airports like that. I have heard now that parts of France are becoming violent with some robberies. That is a problem we have here in many areas and if people carried more and the laws were just we could really square that away soon. I hear you can walk down any street any hour in Singapore and feel safe. That is probably the way it should be worldwide. Whoa are we all fzuked up or what. Ask your Bama Boy JanVan how he likes walking around in Bell town at 2.30 am

Eki

12th March 2012, 07:28

Those photos show what can happen when guns are taken from law abiding citizens. Here in the US criminals will have guns regardless. Why should be take guns from those that legally own them and use them much more often to stop crime than to commit a crime?

In the Finnish civil war, both in the Red Guard dominated and in the White Guard dominated areas, guard patrols went from house to house confiscating weapons from people they considered unreliable or being on the opposite side. If you're alone against 10 or so white/red guardsmen, I'm sure there's not much you can do except a suicide even if you have a legal gun. Oh, and the White Guard and the Red Guard were both voluntary militias in the beginning, only later the White Guard became a part of the government forces.

Eki

12th March 2012, 07:30

As I've shown earlier in the thread, if anyone actually looks at the FBI database information the vast majority of gun related murders in the US are thugs on thugs, mostly in inner cities, and very rarely legal gun owners.

That proves, that it's mainly thugs that need guns to protect them. Legal gun owners would be safe even without their guns.

BDunnell

12th March 2012, 10:36

And once again I will point out that I reject any notion that people like you can restrict my right to defend myself, my family, my friends and my property as I see fit. My mere possession of a firearm doesn't violate anyone else right so you have nobody else has the right to restrict it.

No, Tony. In other countries you have to obey the laws of the land in which you find yourself, not those you believe should be in place. (This, of course, is predicated on the notion that the incident to which I refer actually happened, and I don't think for a moment it did.)

BDunnell

12th March 2012, 10:38

I have heard now that parts of France are becoming violent with some robberies.

This is hardly a revelation to anyone. All countries will have in them parts where violent crime is higher than in others, and where more robberies take place. What's your point?

BDunnell

12th March 2012, 10:40

Those photos show what can happen when guns are taken from law abiding citizens. Here in the US criminals will have guns regardless. Why should be take guns from those that legally own them and use them much more often to stop crime than to commit a crime?

I don't feel the need for any citizen to possess a gun in the name of stopping crime. Never once have I felt so frightened as to consider that a gun would be of protection. And your comment justifying Tony's moronic use of those pictures to portray a Europe beset by violent crime is pathetic.

airshifter

12th March 2012, 12:08

That proves, that it's mainly thugs that need guns to protect them. Legal gun owners would be safe even without their guns.

I've said in the past that my gun ownership has nothing to do with a "need" or even "desire" to have one for self protection. The state I live in allows concealed carry and I've never felt any need to apply for one.

BDunnell

12th March 2012, 12:11

I've said in the past that my gun ownership has nothing to do with a "need" or even "desire" to have one for self protection.

Why have one, then? To make a political point? When it comes to implements — as opposed to books, DVDs and other items I buy for my own amusement — I don't own anything I don't actually need. What's the point in that?

airshifter

12th March 2012, 12:24

I don't feel the need for any citizen to possess a gun in the name of stopping crime. Never once have I felt so frightened as to consider that a gun would be of protection.

I don't own my guns for self protection either. But I had a family member that lived in a less safe area that made a home invader flee after threats to her person. I suspect she avoided bodily harm due to brandishing, not using, a gun.

And your comment justifying Tony's moronic use of those pictures to portray a Europe beset by violent crime is pathetic.

Hitler had reasoning behind what he did....

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

From Nazi Gun Control (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html)

Today most of Europe is higher in crime in almost every aspect other than murder than the US is. That's another fact

Being that you can't address any post by Tony without attacks against his person, you obviously don't have a clear point of view on his posts IMO. I'll assume it's no longer worth commenting on.

BDunnell

12th March 2012, 12:40

I don't own my guns for self protection either. But I had a family member that lived in a less safe area that made a home invader flee after threats to her person. I suspect she avoided bodily harm due to brandishing, not using, a gun.

Strange how so many of the the Americans here can point to such instances, whereas us Europeans generally can't.

Being that you can't address any post by Tony without attacks against his person, you obviously don't have a clear point of view on his posts IMO. I'll assume it's no longer worth commenting on.

My point of view on his opinions is entirely clear, I would have thought. It's not my fault if you can't comprehend it.

Rollo

12th March 2012, 12:59

Those photos show what can happen when guns are taken from law abiding citizens. Here in the US criminals will have guns regardless. Why should be take guns from those that legally own them and use them much more often to stop crime than to commit a crime?

What is the net effect though? The situation which exists in the United States is a wider market where guns are more readily accessible. The law in effect actually enables people to have the ability to commit more crime. That's fine I suppose, if that is how you wish to define the culture.

SGWilko

12th March 2012, 13:03

Lets sum up gun ownership in two;

Educated & principled individual + gun = no problem

twat + gun = recipe for disaster

chuck34

12th March 2012, 13:12

Lets sum up gun ownership in two;

Educated & principled individual + gun = no problem

twat + gun = recipe for disaster

Let's take it one step further then.

Totally outlaw guns;

Educated & principled individual - gun(due to respect for the law) = unarmed and unprotected

twat + gun(due to lack of respect for the law) = still a twat more likely now to commit a crime on those unarmed and unprotected with much less fear of reprisals.

Rollo

12th March 2012, 13:35

Let's take it one step further then.

Totally outlaw guns;

Educated & principled individual - gun(due to respect for the law) = unarmed and unprotected

twat + gun(due to lack of respect for the law) = still a twat more likely now to commit a crime on those unarmed and unprotected with much less fear of reprisals.

No. Twat less likely now to commit a crime because it's now much harder to acquire guns in the first place.

Roamy

12th March 2012, 15:17

well lets take it one step further I would rather have to deal with a bullet vs a furnace

Eki

12th March 2012, 15:32

EuroTroll

12th March 2012, 15:51

Maybe it would be a good idea to make bullet ownership and selling illegal. Existing bullet's would run out faster than the existing firearms. Besides, without bullets, guns are pretty much useless. I'm sure that even the Swiss who have their military assault rifles at home don't have ammunition for those at home.

aAoMNEQo4sQ

:D

The Swiss do, however, have to keep a bit of ammo with their assult rifles.

schmenke

12th March 2012, 16:14

Thought I'd share this, perhaps to put some perspective on firearms regulations outside of the USA.

The curriculum vitae of a former neighbour of mine:
His full time occupation is a law enforcement officer for the city Sherriff’s department.
He is an on-call member of the city tactical squad.
He is also a reservist in the Canadian Armed Forces.
He manages his own shooting club.
He was a good neighbour to have around :p : .

He obviously has access to a wide array of firearms.

Having shared a few refreshments ( :uhoh: ) since I’ve known him, I thought I’d highlight a few facts about firearms regulations in Canada:

Even in his experienced capacity, the following applies:
A federal government issued firearms permit is required to transport his weapons.
He is not permitted to transport fully automatic weapons, unless when on duty with the city tactical unit. His standard-issue sidearm must be kept in a locked storage container at the Sherriff’s office facility.
The only firearms he is permitted to transport when off duty are single shot rifles, unloaded, in a lockable case, with ammunition kept separate.
Both fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons are not permitted in his shooting club. The club has these types of weapons (e.g. M-16, AK-47, etc.) but all are modified to single-shot only.
Only club members who have a firearms permit can transport their weapons (as above), otherwise they must be kept in locked storage at the club facility.
Targets at the club are circular “bulls eye” type only. Human silhouette-type targets, including photographs are not permitted.

:mark:

chuck34

12th March 2012, 16:25

No. Twat less likely now to commit a crime because it's now much harder to acquire guns in the first place.

Ha! That was funny. But here in reality that Twat already has a gun, most likely he has it illegally now. What in the world makes you think more laws will change that?

yagoda53

12th March 2012, 16:30

I don't own my guns for self protection either. But I had a family member that lived in a less safe area that made a home invader flee after threats to her person. I suspect she avoided bodily harm due to brandishing, not using, a gun.

Hitler had reasoning behind what he did....

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." --Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Introduced and with a new preface by H. R. Trevor-Roper. The original German papers were known as Bormann-Vermerke.

From Nazi Gun Control (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id14.html)

Today most of Europe is higher in crime in almost every aspect other than murder than the US is. That's another fact

Being that you can't address any post by Tony without attacks against his person, you obviously don't have a clear point of view on his posts IMO. I'll assume it's no longer worth commenting on.
It was not Hitler that banned guns in Germany. It was the Weimar government in 1929. Doubtful if having guns the jewish population would have fared any better than they did since they owned a tiny percentage of guns at the time they were legal.

Eki

12th March 2012, 17:07

Some chance is almost always better than no chance.

They had guns in the Warsaw ghetto:

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Ghetto_Uprising)

And your chance depends on what their plans for you are. For example, in Western Europe, the Germans left most of those who weren't armed in peace, but those who took part in the armed resistance were in severe danger and likely to be tortured and killed if caught.

Knock-on

12th March 2012, 17:56

I hope donkeys are allowed to sponge bath or shower instead. Nobody likes a smelly donkey.

Perhaps God smells then?

:D

Knock-on

12th March 2012, 18:10

????
What exactly do you call the various Nazi death camps where millions were killed or nearly starved to death?

You have to remember that the Russians were the nasty ones who picked on the porr, innocent, peace loving Nazi's who were just tyring to help the Jews, Russians, Blacks etc by providing mass holiday camps.

Eki

12th March 2012, 18:30

????
What exactly do you call the various Nazi death camps where millions were killed or nearly starved to death?
Most Norwegians, Danes, Dutch, Belgians and French were never in death camps,they lived their lives pretty normally. They had local pro-Nazi governments and some even voluntarily joined the German military.

Eki

12th March 2012, 20:03

And that completely excuses all that happened. OK, now I understand. Thanks for straightening that out.

No, I just gave you an example that sometimes it's safer to not have a gun or at least to not turn it against other people. Especially when other people have the upper hand. Like Kenny Rogers would have put it:

You've got to know when to hold 'em
Know when to fold 'em
Know when to walk away
Know when to run

chuck34

12th March 2012, 20:08

No, I just gave you an example that sometimes it's safer to not have a gun or at least to not turn it against other people. Especially when other people have the upper hand.

So you would rather live like a "good slave", than take a chance at breaking your bonds. Telling. Very, telling.

Rollo

12th March 2012, 20:22

A completely false statement that flies in the face of reality. Unless you can present a convincing argument for how, on making gun ownership illegal or at least extremely difficult, you will magically make the millions of existing firearms go away. You need to look for another reason to support your stand.

No. A completely true statement that is backed with the weight of evidence.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian Government via a buy back scheme took 700,000 guns out of society.

News | The University of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html)
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Australia which has far tighter gun control and which engaged in a mass buy back has a gun-related death rate which is 14.7 times lower per 100,000 people.
Having been down this road before, I can't actually make a convincing argument because it isn't accepted. What is accepted and apparently acceptable is 14.7 times the number of dead Americans as a result of guns per 100,000 people. What's also accepted is a health care system which has to cope with accidents and injuries up and down the land. America as a nation has found it acceptable to wear these costs through increased health insurance premiums.

Eki

12th March 2012, 20:24

So you would rather live like a "good slave", than take a chance at breaking your bonds. Telling. .Very, telling.
I wasn't talking about me. I was talking generally. When there's no chance, some people do prefer to live instead of dying. In 5 card stud poker, would you go against three aces with king high?

BDunnell

12th March 2012, 20:45

A person doesn't even have to be educated, just principled will do.

My word. I would have thought education and training in how to handle a firearm ought to rank above the individual's standpoint on the issue of gun ownership.

ioan

12th March 2012, 21:09

another fine example of google ads
http://i41.tinypic.com/6zy0k7.jpg

google must think I'm a completely different person based on my texan ip :laugh:

:D

ioan

12th March 2012, 21:13

Today most of Europe is higher in crime in almost every aspect other than murder than the US is. That's another fact

And with Europe having almost 50% more citizens I think that is not exactly a bad thing.

ioan

12th March 2012, 21:20

No. A completely true statement that is backed with the weight of evidence.

After the Port Arthur massacre in 1996, the Australian Government via a buy back scheme took 700,000 guns out of society.

News | The University of Sydney (http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newsstoryid=1502)
The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."

Gun deaths halved in past 10 years - www.theage.com.au (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908906612.html)
After the massacre, tough gun laws were enacted across Australia, specifically targeting military-style weapons, which resulted in hundreds of thousands of weapons being destroyed.
The number of deaths caused by firearms dropped almost 50 per cent between 1991 and 2001, with the biggest yearly fall in deaths coming after the 1996 Port Arthur massacre.

Australia which has far tighter gun control and which engaged in a mass buy back has a gun-related death rate which is 14.7 times lower per 100,000 people.
Having been down this road before, I can't actually make a convincing argument because it isn't accepted. What is accepted and apparently acceptable is 14.7 times the number of dead Americans as a result of guns per 100,000 people. What's also accepted is a health care system which has to cope with accidents and injuries up and down the land. America as a nation has found it acceptable to wear these costs through increased health insurance premiums.

Thanks for the great examples.

airshifter

12th March 2012, 21:50

And with Europe having almost 50% more citizens I think that is not exactly a bad thing.

So a larger country having a higher per capita crime rate is ok as long as it's not gun related crime?

ioan

13th March 2012, 00:01

So a larger country having a higher per capita crime rate is ok as long as it's not gun related crime?

I was referring to having less murders then you guys have in pistol heaven.

ioan

13th March 2012, 00:06

Another straw man argument.

BS. His example is fully valid. Unless ofcourse you don't want to accept it. And your knee jerk reaction proves it.

The US is not Australia ...

That much we all figured out on our own.

...and, though I profess ignorance of Aussie prior law,...

Then why even make a comment on it?

Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US.

Ever heard about proportions?

And, yes, it is accepted in the US by a large majority of people. That's why various proposed gun control laws keep getting voted down. Also why more and more states are relaxing existing laws.

Let's be honest, we have nothing against you shooting each other as long as you keep it for yourselves.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 00:22

Another straw man argument.

What you mean is 'an argument with which I disagree'. Two very different things. What Rollo posted is far from a 'straw-man argument'. Read this sentence: 'The authors conclude that "The Australian example provides evidence that removing large numbers of firearms from a community can be associated with a sudden and on-going decline in mass shootings, and accelerating declines in total firearm-related deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides."' In what sense can you — having, I presume, not undertaken a detailed study of the matter yourself — just dismiss the findings of said study?

Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US.

And as a percentage of total numbers of guns held in the country, how does it fare then?

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 00:22

Let's be honest, we have nothing against you shooting each other as long as you keep it for yourselves.

Only if we have scant regard for human life.

Rollo

13th March 2012, 00:40

Another straw man argument. The US is not Australia and, though I profess ignorance of Aussie prior law, I don't believe Australia had relatively lax gun control before the period you quoted. Collecting 700K guns would be a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US. And, yes, it is accepted in the US by a large majority of people.

You're right, which is why you look at per capita rates. Obviously 700,000 guns is "a drop in the bucket compared to the total in the US". You're also correct that Australia didn't have lax gun control laws before the period quoted; even if you look at the period before 1996, per capita injury and death rates were still far far lower in Australia.

It's hardly a straw man argument, when you asserted that my stance "flies in the face of reality" and I went and proved otherwise.

That's why various proposed gun control laws keep getting voted down. Also why more and more states are relaxing existing laws.

No. Gun control laws keep on getting voted down in the United States because guns are so entrenched in your culture.

chuck34

13th March 2012, 12:58

chuck34

13th March 2012, 13:01

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking generally. When there's no chance, some people do prefer to live instead of dying. In 5 card stud poker, would you go against three aces with king high?

So Liberty and Freedom are things to be gambled away to you? Again telling, very telling.

A puzzle is begining to come into focus with each and every piece (as if it wasn't already). Eki doesn't believe in any absolute rights, liberties, or freedoms. He only accepts what a stonger person tells him are his rights and liberties. That and what Wikipedia tells him.

Tell me Eki, assume for a minute that you would have had the unfortunate "privledge" of being an African, plucked from you peaceful existance on the planes of Africa, to be shipped to work on a Plantation in Gerogia, would you have just been a "good little worker"? I mean afterall you had no chance, why not just fold your cards?

chuck34

13th March 2012, 13:10

No. Gun control laws keep on getting voted down in the United States because guns are so entrenched in your culture.

Yes they are. And what the hell is wrong with that? We, Americans, keep being told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again (and in many circumstances rightfully so) that we should just keep our noses out of other people's business. That we "don't understand" other cultures. That we "don't live the way others do". That we "have no right to tell others how to live".

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?

If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?

If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?

If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 13:51

Yes they are. And what the hell is wrong with that? We, Americans, keep being told over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over again (and in many circumstances rightfully so) that we should just keep our noses out of other people's business. That we "don't understand" other cultures. That we "don't live the way others do". That we "have no right to tell others how to live".

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?

If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?

If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?

If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of victim mentality.

Also, you fail, Chuck, to grasp one essential difference between those who object to America imposing itself around the world and those here who are against the American gun laws. Those who say the US should, as you put it, 'keep our noses out of other people's business' are objecting to years of policy on the part of successive US administrations, some of whose foreign policy adventures have been deeply counterproductive to global security. All those of us here who object to US gun laws are doing is voicing our opinion against one law and the basis for it. We are entitled to do so, and will go on doing so. This is totally unconnected to any criticism of US foreign policy, except for the extent to which I believe there exists in sections of US society a certain 'gung-ho', 'trigger-happy' mentality which guarantees public support for misguided efforts like the 2003 Iraq conflict — an entirely separate discussion.

You say that Americans are often criticised for their lack of understanding of other cultures. I consider it wrong to apply this across the board, but from my experiences on these forums I can see exactly what people mean, I'm sorry to say. Does not the often greater worldliness of Europeans, and our greater understanding of other cultures, render it far from hypocritical for us to make comments on said cultures?

Eki

13th March 2012, 14:52

So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? What gives you the right? You don't understand our culture, by your own admission. You don't live the way we do. You have no right to tell us how to live. Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?

Because you try to tell the rest of the world how to live. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea,..., etc. You don't understand their cultures or even our cultures and don't live like they or even us live. Why are their nuclear power plants or even nuclear weapons any of your business?

schmenke

13th March 2012, 15:16

...
So why the hell are all you Europeans and Aussies, etc. telling us Americans how to live now? ...

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

...You have no right to tell us how to live. ...

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

... Why are gun laws in the US any of your business?
If I feel I need a gun for protection, why do you feel that you know my situation better than I do?
If I feel I need a gun to ward off an oppressive, or even the threat of an oppressive government, why do think you know better?
If I feel like going to a range and shooting at some targets, who are you to tell me I can't do that?
If you live in the US and don't want to own a gun, no one is forcing you to. So how does someone leagally owning one, for any reason, infringe upon you, your rights, or your liberties?

Why so defensive?

Why can't we simply debate the pros-cons of private firearms ownership, weather in the U.S. or elsewhere?

Knock-on

13th March 2012, 15:30

Blimey chuck, stop crying into your pantyhose with your victim mentality. Bloody Liberal ;)

We're debating here. Talking, conversing, exploring.

How you can equate people on a Global forum discussing Global Gun ownership with American foreign policy which has lead to hundreds of thousands of deaths in recent years is beyond me.

Get over it.

(Supposed to be tongue in cheek and not too serious :D )

chuck34

13th March 2012, 15:41

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of victim mentality.

Also, you fail, Chuck, to grasp one essential difference between those who object to America imposing itself around the world and those here who are against the American gun laws. Those who say the US should, as you put it, 'keep our noses out of other people's business' are objecting to years of policy on the part of successive US administrations, some of whose foreign policy adventures have been deeply counterproductive to global security. All those of us here who object to US gun laws are doing is voicing our opinion against one law and the basis for it. We are entitled to do so, and will go on doing so. This is totally unconnected to any criticism of US foreign policy, except for the extent to which I believe there exists in sections of US society a certain 'gung-ho', 'trigger-happy' mentality which guarantees public support for misguided efforts like the 2003 Iraq conflict — an entirely separate discussion.

You say that Americans are often criticised for their lack of understanding of other cultures. I consider it wrong to apply this across the board, but from my experiences on these forums I can see exactly what people mean, I'm sorry to say. Does not the often greater worldliness of Europeans, and our greater understanding of other cultures, render it far from hypocritical for us to make comments on said cultures?

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of a superiority complex.

What a joke. Somehow you claim that it is ok for you as a European to critise anything the US does either in foreign or domestic policy because somehow you are more "worldly" than I am. You know next to nothing about me, my world travels, and knowledge of other cultures. Just as I know next to nothign about you. What makes you so special? What makes you more "worldly" than me, or anyone else for that matter?

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either I have the right to cricise European affairs, or you do not. That is all I am saying.

chuck34

13th March 2012, 15:52

Because you try to tell the rest of the world how to live. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea,..., etc. You don't understand their cultures or even our cultures and don't live like they or even us live. Why are their nuclear power plants or even nuclear weapons any of your business?

Because you are trying to tell the US how to live. You don't understand our culture, and you don't live like we do. Why are our guns any of your business.

Don't you see your hypocracy?

chuck34

13th March 2012, 15:55

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

Where is anyone on this thread saying that? :s

Hmmm. So you guys saying that we should outlaw guns is NOT telling us how to live??? I guess I do live in bizzaro world.

Why so defensive?

Why can't we simply debate the pros-cons of private firearms ownership, weather in the U.S. or elsewhere?

Defensive? No. Sick and tired of the hypocracy? Yes.

If you want to debate the pros and cons. Then fine. But all too often other thread devolve into Europeans telling Americans to but out of other people's business. Yet they do the exact same thing when it comes to the US. I'm tired of the hypocracy.

Let's debate the pros and cons. I'm good with that. But please, in the future, when we are debating something in Europe, or elsewhere, please do not tell Americans that we can't have an opinion because we don't know/understand a culture.

chuck34

13th March 2012, 15:57

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 16:36

Why so defensive?

Because all of these people are far more frightened than we are. I don't consider this a positive trait.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 16:38

My overriding reaction to this is: what a demonstration of a superiority complex.

What a joke. Somehow you claim that it is ok for you as a European to critise anything the US does either in foreign or domestic policy because somehow you are more "worldly" than I am. You know next to nothing about me, my world travels, and knowledge of other cultures. Just as I know next to nothign about you. What makes you so special? What makes you more "worldly" than me, or anyone else for that matter?

So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Either I have the right to cricise European affairs, or you do not. That is all I am saying.

Chuck, nowhere in my post was I referring to you, because while I may have disagreements with you on this and other issues, I don't lump you in with those Americans one encountered who are depressingly insular, so I'd like an apology for your diatribe — one better suited to an inarticulate rant against you rather than what I deliberately intended to be a measured post.

chuck34

13th March 2012, 16:41

Because all of these people are far more frightened than we are. I don't consider this a positive trait.

I am not frightened of anything. With the possible exception of the government growing too power hungary and taking away more of our rights, which is happening all the time.

Once again, for the record, I don't own a gun. But I will fight to my last breath to make sure that people who do choose to own one, have that right. For whatever reason they choose, frightened of their neighbors, pleasure, government encroachment, just for the hell of it. The reason does not matter.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 16:42

3) We got into Iraq because of the lies and fabrications of some in our government who were working their own agenda. We're having a hell of a time getting out. (An excellent example of why people may need to stay armed to protect themselves from their own government or, more precisely, those in any culture who strive to take control of things to their own ends.)

There seem to be enough firearms in the hands of Afghans, unless you hadn't noticed. A fat lot of good they are doing, too.

4) Afghanistan suffers from Iraq. We took our eye off the ball after 9/11 by allowing ourselves to be detoured into Iraq. Afghanistan would have been over and done but for that. And Osama and cronies would have been dead much sooner.

Really? I doubt it. Afghanistan is going to be in dire straits for decades to come. It is naive to suggest that it would have been anything other than a long haul had it not been for Iraq. And let's not forget the significant numbers of your countrymen who apparently believed that Iraq was 'something to do with '9/11'' even when there was no evidence whatsoever for this.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 16:43

I am not frightened of anything. With the possible exception of the government growing too power hungary and taking away more of our rights, which is happening all the time.

Once again, for the record, I don't own a gun. But I will fight to my last breath to make sure that people who do choose to own one, have that right. For whatever reason they choose, frightened of their neighbors, pleasure, government encroachment, just for the hell of it. The reason does not matter.

And neither, apparently, does the level of intelligence or competence of the people holding them.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 16:47

So I guess that means that the US should have minded it's own business in 1943. The war with Japan was justified because of their attack on US territory but the US should have stayed out of Europe as there was no direct threat? I guess the US should also have withdrawn from all of Europe at the end of WWII and left the European countries to deal with the USSR - another European country?

For a start, the US entered the European theatre in 1942, not 1943. If you are going to seek to lecture others, get your facts right. Secondly, where on earth did I mention the Second World War? Re-read what I wrote again and you'll see no reference to it (equally, you won't find me genuflecting towards America's late intervention, as valuable as it unquestionably was, and expressing undying gratitude because I consider it unnecessary so to do). For what it's worth, I consider the American presence in Europe and the assistance it rendered post-war to, generally, have been an example of foreign policy carried out for the right reasons, unlike certain recent adventures. Certainly, it was a significant contributor to peace during the Cold War. Unfortunately, though, you have fallen into the trap encountered by quite a lot of right-leaning Americans, namely to believe that criticism of one aspect of American policy must equate to a detestation of every aspect. This is simply not true, although it is highly predictable.

chuck34

13th March 2012, 16:49

Chuck, nowhere in my post was I referring to you, because while I may have disagreements with you on this and other issues, I don't lump you in with those Americans one encountered who are depressingly insular, so I'd like an apology for your diatribe — one better suited to an inarticulate rant against you rather than what I deliberately intended to be a measured post.

What? You didn't refer to me? Are you serious?

Listen I do normally respect you and your opinions. You are fairly rational, even though I disagree with you most of the time on politically ideology.

But this is too far. For you to claim that you did not refer to me when you directly quoted me, and then to demand an apology. No. That I will not do.

I said what I said, and I ment it. It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else. This is an internet forum. You know next to nothing about anyone here. So to claim that you have some superior right to an opinion because you are more "worldly" than somone else, is ridiculous on it's face.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 16:55

What? You didn't refer to me? Are you serious?

Listen I do normally respect you and your opinions. You are fairly rational, even though I disagree with you most of the time on politically ideology.

But this is too far. For you to claim that you did not refer to me when you directly quoted me, and then to demand an apology. No. That I will not do.

I said what I said, and I ment it. It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else. This is an internet forum. You know next to nothing about anyone here. So to claim that you have some superior right to an opinion because you are more "worldly" than somone else, is ridiculous on it's face.

Chuck, what will it take to get through to you — I wasn't referring to you in this instance, but other people! For goodness' sake. Do you think I'm lying when I say that? I'm not, I'll have you know. How on earth you can possibly conclude that my comments were aimed at you I honestly have no idea, because they were not.

And as for your assertion that 'It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else' — well, clearly it does, hence your irritation, but what do you mean by that anyway? Are you seeking to deny that there is an insular streak to be found in some of your countrymen, of a type that one rarely encounters in, for example, Europe? I didn't consider it that controversial an opinion.

schmenke

13th March 2012, 17:03

...So maybe we should just agree to disagree and let this thread wither away.

Agreed. Based on previous similar efforts, sadly the outcome of this thread is highly predictable :mark: .

chuck34

13th March 2012, 17:33

Chuck, what will it take to get through to you — I wasn't referring to you in this instance, but other people! For goodness' sake. Do you think I'm lying when I say that? I'm not, I'll have you know. How on earth you can possibly conclude that my comments were aimed at you I honestly have no idea, because they were not.

And as for your assertion that 'It does not matter if you were refering to me or someone else' — well, clearly it does, hence your irritation, but what do you mean by that anyway? Are you seeking to deny that there is an insular streak to be found in some of your countrymen, of a type that one rarely encounters in, for example, Europe? I didn't consider it that controversial an opinion.

My God I do live in Bizzaro world. In my universe, when you directly quote someone you are clearly refering to them. If you wanted to speak about my arguments but not address me, then perhaps you should have said something like "Other Americans ...", "other Conservatives ..." etc. But when you directly quote me, without qualification, then what am I supposed to infer from that other than you are referencing me?

janvanvurpa

13th March 2012, 17:40

We have, In multiple threads here. Over and over. But some keep whipping a dead horse and reopening the same tired discussion again.

At the risk of more threats of ban for daring to speak to an imoderate 'moderator'.....it seems from my perspective that threads are started expressing horror and dismay at pointless, seemingly insane gun related murders which are then derailed by a tiny coterie of Americans ranting about "Nobody's gonna take my guns! Cause I'm gonna shoot it out with a) baddies and b) the evil Gubbymint".

Normal people in normal civilised countries ARE dismayed and horrified when innocent people are slaghtered by crazies.
Evidently you and Chuck like it.

Canada (and I love the country and visit often) is more aligned with the European culture. Though it does sort of have a foot in both camps.

Considering that maybe 85% of the population of Canada lives withing 100km of the US border, and that despite a absurd and wasteful border charade is carried out, the line on the map does not stop the relentless maddness poured forth from US AM Radio. Also there are cynical greedy authoritarians in Canada as plagues everywhere, and they know they can make a fortune winding up the weaker minded and more fearful in Canada so there is a mimicking of the diarrhea from the US AM radio....so yes, there's a foot in both but I would suggest that one isn't in a camp, but rather something smellier, and stickier.

The US culture, on the other hand, has always been based on the individual. Probably because of much of our history as a "frontier" and rebel country. We esteem individual rights over collective society. We don't like other people telling us what to do. (Even if they're sometimes right. :p )

What America "was always" is one thing. One must wonder why the Legislatures of Virginia and Massechusetts, the 2 major hotbeds of our Revolution were thinking when they named their former Colonies "The Commonwealth of Virginia" and the "Commonwealth of Massivetwoshïts"?
Further one has to wonder what the hell they were talking about in the Preamble of our Constitution when they were all blabberingabout "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," instead of "THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! which so many claim the country "has always been"?

So maybe we should just agree to disagree and let this thread wither away.

Or you could just threaten bannation to everybody who points out anything that disagrees with you and the other Americans hijacking threads or those ridiculing the vision of you guys blazing away at a M-1 Abrams with you pistols and rifles "defending yourself against gubbymint tyranny".

Gregor-y

13th March 2012, 17:41

For a start, the US entered the European theatre in 1942, not 1943.
We were already involved by 1940 with the destroyer/base exchange and Lend-Lease in 1941. And that's not counting convoy work.

And it was Germany and Italy that declared war on the US, though oddly because of the way the Japan treaty was written it wasn't required since Japan struck first.

I've heard someone say Japanese internment within the US wouldn't have happened they all were armed. True story.

janvanvurpa

13th March 2012, 17:51

You didn't have to mention WWII, you were pulling up instances where you believe the US to be in error and I was citing instances where our foreign adventures were warmly welcomed.

I don't have time to do a complete forum search of all your posts, so perhaps you could remind me of the last time you applauded anything done by the US? I certainly can't remember it. So, could it be that the body of your posts would lead one to believe that you perhaps are not inclined to think much of this country?

And it's such a shame you began with Korea where the US was only welcomed by the most extreme elements in Korea, specifically the Officer Corp who had been on the pay of Japan---a brutal totalitarian regime..And who were installed by the US Army, and who replicated the paranoid, hyper Nationalistic, brutal Government like they knew best.
And it took a bloody war and a couple of decades of violent and murderous repression in the South by the South Korean "dynasty" before there was anything like a civilised, democratic society in the South..

So Fail on that example.

Anyplace else where US military forces were welcomed?

chuck34

13th March 2012, 17:55

Normal people in normal civilised countries ARE dismayed and horrified when innocent people are slaghtered by crazies.
Evidently you and Chuck like it.

When have I ever said that I like this sort of thing happening? I hate it, and wish that it would never happen. But in a free society, unfortunatly crap happens. I know that's an old cliche, but it is true. The only way to ensure that nothing bad will ever happen is to take all freedom away. Is that a good answer to you, take all freedom away, so that no one can ever hurt themselves or others?

Also there are cynical greedy authoritarians in Canada as plagues everywhere,

Which position is more "authoritarian", allowing people to own guns as they have for well over 200 years, or passing new laws that will outlaw tomorrow what is legal today?

What America "was always" is one thing. One must wonder why the Legislatures of Virginia and Massechusetts, the 2 major hotbeds of our Revolution were thinking when they named their former Colonies "The Commonwealth of Virginia" and the "Commonwealth of Massivetwoshïts"?
Further one has to wonder what the hell they were talking about in the Preamble of our Constitution when they were all blabberingabout "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," instead of "THE INDIVIDUAL!!!! which so many claim the country "has always been"?

It is clear from this statement that the only thing you know of the US Constitution is the preamble. You have clearly never read the rest of the document, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the writings of the Founders, and the like. If you had read up on some of those things you would see that the over-riding concern of EVERYONE involved was how to maximize personal liberty while maintaining some form of National unity.

Or you could just threaten bannation to everybody who points out anything that disagrees with you and the other Americans hijacking threads or those ridiculing the vision of you guys blazing away at a M-1 Abrams with you pistols and rifles "defending yourself against gubbymint tyranny".

So your belief is that there is no way for the US government to become tyranical? That isn't what I heard from many on the left/progressive/liberal side of things when the debate turns to the Patriot Act. Interesting how that works.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 18:25

My God I do live in Bizzaro world. In my universe, when you directly quote someone you are clearly refering to them. If you wanted to speak about my arguments but not address me, then perhaps you should have said something like "Other Americans ...", "other Conservatives ..." etc. But when you directly quote me, without qualification, then what am I supposed to infer from that other than you are referencing me?

I had hoped you'd realised enough about me to know that I don't automatically lump you in with certain other individuals.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 18:28

I don't have time to do a complete forum search of all your posts, so perhaps you could remind me of the last time you applauded anything done by the US? I certainly can't remember it. So, could it be that the body of your posts would lead one to believe that you perhaps are not inclined to think much of this country?

I would be interested to find any instances where I had applauded any country. It's generally not the sort of thing I, or many other people, do. You really were infected with the Bush virus, weren't you — 'You're either with us or against us'. Even a lack of explicit praise is now cited as outright opposition. An interesting leap of judgement.

Eki

13th March 2012, 18:32

The war with Japan was justified because of their attack on US territory
Actually it was Hawaiian territory before the US attacked it and made it US territory. And there were many ethnic Japanese in Hawaii, so it was natural that Japan was as interested in ruling Hawaii as the US was. Japan was never a real threat to the mainland USA.

chuck34

13th March 2012, 19:07

I had hoped you'd realised enough about me to know that I don't automatically lump you in with certain other individuals.

I would have thought so. However, the words on the screen tell a different story. If you are now clarifying what you said, I can accept that. I suppose my advise would be that in the future when you quote me you should not say something that you are not applying to me without expressly stating as such. I hope you can see where confusion can lay when one is quoted, but somehow the poster is not directing a response to that quote?

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 19:07

Starter, fair enough on many of those points a few posts above. However...

I was only asking why almost all (if not actually all) of your posts on any subject about the US are negative. It's a reasonable question. The thing that irritates me (and I suspect some others) is the seemingly constant pounding of all things American. That's not deserved criticism, that's just piling on.

I object enormously to any accusations of anti-Americanism. There is much to admire about America. When topics come up, I respond to them. The fact that, on issues like gun control and foreign policy, I find myself more in disagreement with you and certain others than I happen to agree. That, though, is hardly my fault, is it?

ioan

13th March 2012, 20:41

Because you are trying to tell the US how to live. You don't understand our culture, and you don't live like we do. Why are our guns any of your business.

Don't you see your hypocracy?

What's that hypocracy?! Oh wait, you were talking about your culture not ours. Now I understand what that word should mean.

ioan

13th March 2012, 20:44

Because all of these people are far more frightened than we are. I don't consider this a positive trait.

Especially when the aforementioned people poses guns. Some politicians did a 'great' job over there.

BDunnell

13th March 2012, 20:49

I suspect that you and I may disagree much less than you think on foreign policy.

Very possibly, and I apologise for misrepresenting that.

janvanvurpa

13th March 2012, 23:50

donKey jote

14th March 2012, 01:01

What's that hypocracy?!

Only medical practitioners have a right to vote, after taking their oath (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath) ? :p

yagoda53

14th March 2012, 03:04

The Nuance is that more people have been murdered under the specter of restrictive gun control laws in Europe than all those killed by guns owned by private citizens in the USA. I guess I was too subtle.....

And once again I will point out that I reject any notion that people like you can restrict my right to defend myself, my family, my friends and my property as I see fit. My mere possession of a firearm doesn't violate anyone else right so you have nobody else has the right to restrict it.

So this discussion is over which releases you to tell other people how they can live their lives.

This is the very first time I've ever heard a gun supporter state that guns kill. Usually it is the idiotic,guns don't kill people, people kill people.

chuck34

14th March 2012, 12:28

What's that hypocracy?! Oh wait, you were talking about your culture not ours. Now I understand what that word should mean.

Evidently he means a system of government the Hypocrites, for the Hypocrites, by the hypocrites..

There is a small possiblity that he means:hypocrisy Look up hypocrisy at Dictionary.com
c.1200, ipocrisie, from O.Fr. ypocrisie, from L.L. hypocrisis, from Gk. hypokrisis "acting on the stage, pretense," from hypokrinesthai "play a part, pretend," also "answer," from hypo- "under" (see sub-) + middle voice of krinein "to sift, decide" (see crisis). The sense evolution in Attic Greek is from "separate gradually" to "answer" to "answer a fellow actor on stage" to "play a part." The h- was restored in English 16c.

But Shirley I could not comment.

Yet another spelling lesson from people who have clearly never made a mistake in their lives! Oh, goodie! Thanks guys, you're the best. Thanks for keeping all of us dummies in line. Without you guys we'd all just be wandering around with pools of our own drool on our shirts.

But it is nice to see that when those who are "superior" have nothing to add to the debate they can always be counted on to criticize the form or style of a post rather than the content. That's refreshing, and oh such a new concept!

Give it a rest. It was quite clear what was ment. Sorry I'm not as perfect as you guys.
:rolleyes:

Oh and here's a clue if you aren't smart enough to pick up on it ... That was sarcasm.

janvanvurpa

14th March 2012, 16:28

The more modern definition would be: to profess one thing and do a different, usually diametrically opposed, thing.

Yes, yes, we are all more than familiar with what the term has for current meaning.
We daily have dozens of examples, hundreds even from people who call themselves educated, but aren't, Christian but aren't, "Freedom™" loving, but aren't, etc etc from the front page of the papers to the daily examples of nearly all the Americans here---except those who have roots elsewhere (a curious thing indeed).

By the way, I apologize for the accusation that you threatened to ban me for daring to question you.
It was some other American----somebody who evidently lives in some fantasy CART or some such crap world.
But he wrote the same as all the other Yanks so couldn't distinguish the difference.
Sorry.

ioan

14th March 2012, 20:46

Yet another spelling lesson from people who have clearly never made a mistake in their lives! Oh, goodie! Thanks guys, you're the best. Thanks for keeping all of us dummies in line. Without you guys we'd all just be wandering around with pools of our own drool on our shirts.

But it is nice to see that when those who are "superior" have nothing to add to the debate they can always be counted on to criticize the form or style of a post rather than the content. That's refreshing, and oh such a new concept!

Give it a rest. It was quite clear what was ment. Sorry I'm not as perfect as you guys.
:rolleyes:

Oh and here's a clue if you aren't smart enough to pick up on it ... That was sarcasm.

Well, I just thought it was funny that you go ballistic about your culture and then make spelling mistakes (though I guess it is a form you usually use) when calling us, for whatever reason, hypocrites.

BDunnell

14th March 2012, 21:01

Well, I just thought it was funny that you go ballistic about your culture and then make spelling mistakes (though I guess it is a form you usually use) when calling us, for whatever reason, hypocrites.

Point taken, ioan, but surely it would only apply were it just Americans making spelling mistakes, rather than lots of other native speakers of English?

chuck34

14th March 2012, 21:18

Well, I just thought it was funny that you go ballistic about your culture and then make spelling mistakes (though I guess it is a form you usually use) when calling us, for whatever reason, hypocrites.

Thank you for pointing out, once again, just how perfect you are. And thank you as well for judging us mere mortals against the scale of perfection that only you can live up to.

janvanvurpa

14th March 2012, 22:19

Well, I just thought it was funny that you go ballistic about your culture and then make spelling mistakes (though I guess it is a form you usually use) when calling us, for whatever reason, hypocrites.

Ok Ok, don't be mean. You see how the real Americans plunge from pugnacious posturing when pontificating about their patriotism and perfection, to pitiful pre-adolesent protests of prosecution promptly precisely when people point out any problem in their preposterous palaver and prattle.

They are all armed and with such delicate egos, you make a joke and maybe they flip out and blow their brains out.
How would you feel about that?

And maybe they meant hypocracy..

Knock-on

15th March 2012, 09:40

A serious subject like gun control and murder Vs spelling and grammar.

Sure you lot aren't politicians?

schmenke

15th March 2012, 15:09

Yeah, bunch of hypokrits :down:

Gregor-y

15th March 2012, 15:30

Ok Ok, don't be mean. You see how the real Americans plunge from pugnacious posturing when pontificating about their patriotism and perfection, to pitiful pre-adolesent protests of prosecution promptly precisely when people point out any problem in their preposterous palaver and prattle.
Wow, I though Spiro Agnew died. I didn't realize he moved to Washington and became a rally fan.
And I'd thank you to change your line 'real American' to 'real Southern.' Don't lump the rest of us in with the hayseeds! ;)

janvanvurpa

15th March 2012, 16:28

A serious subject like gun control and murder Vs spelling and grammar.

Sure you lot aren't politicians?

knockie, I said I wouldn't normally comment on spelling and grammar, not me who spells and hacks grammar in so many languages and this isn't "about" spelling --it accepts the "alternate" spelling and is poking fun at that since for the bulk of "those kind" of "merikuns" it actually seems more appropriate..
Parody
Satire
redicule
Irony...

Only way the half of the country who are not Zombie jeebus lovin armed to the teeth and screaming "but I haib't 'fraid a nobody!!" Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Nazi " can resolve all the lunacy of "those sort" is with very broad front humor...

And yes its a serious subject----but "those sort" have consistantly hi-jacked any thread showing any shock or dismay at the plight of the 10s of thousands of victims, into a simple minded blind-rigid assertion that their right to own a gun is far more important than the thousands of deaths of inncocents yearly...

Indeed since this last 2 threads aboput victims started there was a THIRD shooting by of child within less than 50Km from here. This one fatal.

Death of Wash. Boy Third Gun Accident in 3 Weeks - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/death-wash-boy-gun-accident-weeks-15925599#.T2IJx3k0PTo)
y DONNA BLANKINSHIP and DOUG ESSER Associated Press
SEATTLE March 15, 2012 (AP)

A toddler shoots himself to death with his father's gun. A young girl dies when a sibling fires a gun found in the family car. A school girl is seriously wounded when a gun in a boy's backpack goes off.

Three tragic accidents in the span of just three weeks are raising questions about the effectiveness of the state's gun laws and community awareness of firearm safety.

Tacoma police Officer Naveed Benjamin said the 3-year-old boy's death Wednesday highlights the need for people to secure guns.

"It is incredible in light of the other ones," Benjamin said. "You would think people would take more care, not less."

After his parents stopped for gas early Wednesday, the young boy scrambled out of his child seat, found a gun police say was left in the car by his father and fatally shot himself in the head.

Tacoma police said his father put his pistol under a seat and got out to pump gas while the mother went inside the convenience store. The boy's infant sister, who also was in the car, was not injured.

The Pierce County medical examiner has identified the boy as Julio Segura-McIntosh of Tacoma.

Detectives questioned the parents and have called the shooting a tragic accident, Benjamin said. The father has a concealed weapons permit, and no charges have been filed, he said. Pierce County Prosecutor Mark Lindquist said that he is reviewing the case for possible manslaughter charges.

Yeah its fawking serious for those who don't live in a idealised, theoretical, fantasy world.

Bitch at them, Knockie not us who in our own way try to bring and maintain HUMAN reactions to these insane pointless deaths.

chuck34

15th March 2012, 21:02

knockie, I said I wouldn't normally comment on spelling and grammar, not me who spells and hacks grammar in so many languages and this isn't "about" spelling --it accepts the "alternate" spelling and is poking fun at that since for the bulk of "those kind" of "merikuns" it actually seems more appropriate..
Parody
Satire
redicule
Irony...

Only way the half of the country who are not Zombie jeebus lovin armed to the teeth and screaming "but I haib't 'fraid a nobody!!" Obama is a Kenyan Muslim Marxist Nazi " can resolve all the lunacy of "those sort" is with very broad front humor...

And yes its a serious subject----but "those sort" have consistantly hi-jacked any thread showing any shock or dismay at the plight of the 10s of thousands of victims, into a simple minded blind-rigid assertion that their right to own a gun is far more important than the thousands of deaths of inncocents yearly...

Indeed since this last 2 threads aboput victims started there was a THIRD shooting by of child within less than 50Km from here. This one fatal.

Yeah its fawking serious for those who don't live in a idealised, theoretical, fantasy world.

Bitch at them, Knockie not us who in our own way try to bring and maintain HUMAN reactions to these insane pointless deaths.

Good Lord what a bunch of self serving clap trap.

No one has said they don't have sympathy for the victims. No one has said the original post wasn't a tragedy. No one has said that all these gun crimes are not senseless.

All anyone is saying is that it doesn't make sense to have a knee-jerk reaction to these type of tragedies and propose to take away all legally held guns. Perhaps there are other factors involved in these acts other than the gun? Perhaps there are socio-economic factors that are at the root of this stuff? But yeah, let's just demonize guns, and anyone that happens to own one simply because YOU don't agree with gun ownership. Or perhaps the real root cause of your hatred of guns is the fact that you yourself are 'fraid of 'em?

But yeah go ahead and make a big "joke" out of a mis-spelled word. Because that's all you've got. You can't have a serious discussion about anything. The last post you made before you went off on your "joke" was about how the Founders of this country somehow didn't give a damn about individual rights because of a phrase "common defense", and naming States Commonwealths. Then when you are challenged on that, you ignore it, and go off on your "superiority" rant (all cloaked in a "joke" of course).

You sir, are the joke, and not a funny one at that.

And now, oh so predictably, here comes good 'ole Janvan back again with more drivel about how I'm some sort of hick that doesn't know one end of a pencil from the other. How about trying to actually have a rational debate about issues? Oh that would be much too hard for you seeing as how you can not handle anyone challenging you on anything.