Support the good fight and prevent the government from taking our guns. Join the National Rifle Association and the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) to help our first and last line of defense.

NRA-ILA
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Or find them at: www.nralive.com

Please stop the INSANITY and save our rights and guns.

That's stupid. Guns should be banned.

Of course you say that, You live in canada!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent:
That's stupid. Guns should be banned.

---

What should be banned after are knives, rocks, baseball bats, glass bottles.

and of course free speech next.

Im for guns, But I think. When there's more gunz on the streets there's much more murders.
more gunz \ more murders. (repeat until understood )

It's an evil cycle. I'd rather deal with an evil cycle than lose my rights. We should ban feminists and lesbians, just for good measure.

I think we need to do one of two things... One, get ride of all the fucking guns and shit on the planet, including ones held by all governments. Two, distribute a gun to every single person in the world who is at least say...18 years of age for an extremely low cost and they have had at least 1 month, everyday, experience learning about and using the guns. Either way it turns out good. The first way is obvious, the second way will help keep people from killing eachother (maybe) and committing other crimes because they know that chances are, 'this' guys has got a gun too! Also it would quickly teach people about gun safety. Any accidents that take place or big problems that occur will tend to end quickly and gradually become less and less frequent and the disturbance would occur, if the second choice is taken, but it would probably help take care of over population and famine in many countries accross the world. Kinda gotta weigh the pros' and cons'.

Brent, banning guns is illogical. It's not like every 2 bit thug that's gonna get a gun is gonna run out and take a firearms safety course and get a permit and wait 2 weeks to obtain it. They are just going to get it off the black market for some quick cash that they just got out the ATM 20 minutes ago while the civilians are unarmed.

It makes no fucking sense. They say if firearms were banned it would take the guns out of the hands of the people that shouldn't have them. Well it's not like they are going to follow the fucking law anyway, that's like making suicide illegal. I can see it now, nome guy has a knife to his wrist, and then he decides to back off because it's against the law.

The lawas are only good for those that wish to follow them. If some punk is going to get a gun, he isn't going to do it through legal methods anyway. All it does is fuck the people that choose to follow the law and make them easier prey for those that don't.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:
The lawas are only good for those that wish to follow them. If some punk is going to get a gun, he isn't going to do it through legal methods anyway. All it does is fuck the people that choose to follow the law and make them easier prey for those that don't.

---

I totally agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuriousMonky:
I totally agree.

---

i second that

Great! let's put it together and take it to the Gov.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuriousMonky:
Great! let's put it together and take it to the Gov.

---

you do all the work and just tell me were to sign and i shall do it other then that im to lazy to put it all together myself

I live in canada....AND I WANT MY FUCKING GUN!!!!

-Chibi

-And ill go HUNTING!

Shouldn�t this be in Right to Bear Arms forum?

Guns are good...Guns are bad...do that positives out way the negitives?

guns are designed to kill. that is there function. the people who do not want them banned do it on the reason that guns will always be around, and you don't want 'evil' people to be the only ones to have them.

to equate weapons with free speech is just bullshit though. someone saying there opinion isn't going to kill you (you know what i mean). to ban all weapons on earth would be good, as is free speech, but thats not going to happen.

but people say that guns should be banned because they are more efficient at killing people than pretty well everything else, and giving someone that kind of power is just demented. someone going phsyco with an axe or a long knife is not nearly as damaging as someone with an assualt rifle or a few handguns. a weapon of that power should not be promoted to people with no reason to have them apart from fear. training does not mean that they will not fly off the handle and shoot people who they don't like.

i just decided to clarify the major points on both sides because they tend to be repeated alot.

something ive noticed, is that americans are the only ones who have this dependancy on guns. almost every other country knows that guns are used to kill. someone said that guns should be banned, and someone else said 'thats because you are candian'. the attitude of the world is diffrent to the attitude of america. im not sure why that is, but it fucking unnerving. the world leader is the only one with a massive fixation on owning weapons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RAOVQ:
guns are designed to kill. that is there function. the people who do not want them banned do it on the reason that guns will always be around, and you don't want 'evil' people to be the only ones to have them.

to equate weapons with free speech is just bullshit though. someone saying there opinion isn't going to kill you (you know what i mean). to ban all weapons on earth would be good, as is free speech, but thats not going to happen.

but people say that guns should be banned because they are more efficient at killing people than pretty well everything else, and giving someone that kind of power is just demented. someone going phsyco with an axe or a long knife is not nearly as damaging as someone with an assualt rifle or a few handguns. a weapon of that power should not be promoted to people with no reason to have them apart from fear. training does not mean that they will not fly off the handle and shoot people who they don't like.

i just decided to clarify the major points on both sides because they tend to be repeated alot.

something ive noticed, is that americans are the only ones who have this dependancy on guns. almost every other country knows that guns are used to kill. someone said that guns should be banned, and someone else said 'thats because you are candian'. the attitude of the world is diffrent to the attitude of america. im not sure why that is, but it fucking unnerving. the world leader is the only one with a massive fixation on owning weapons.

---

Guns are designed to kill. The second amendment of the American Constitution deals with the right to keep and bear arms. The first is free speech. The founders of America considered this second only to the right to speak out. Guns are designed to kill, whether in murder, self-defense or hunting, or to an extent target shooting. do the pros outweigh the cons? Yes.

"That's because your Canadian"

You and the one who is Canadian also did not rebel for your freedom from Britain. Nothing unerving about wanting to be free. what is un-nerving is lapdogs.


We have a dependancy from guns because they are a crime deterrent. Crime was much lower during the days of the "Wild West" due to openly carrying weapons then todays strict gun control. The only people who want guns completly banned are the ones who speak of rights of the criminal, while ignoring those of the victim. Another funny thing these people are doing is filing wrongful death suits against a man who kills an armed robber. A popular saying is "When Guns are outlawed, Only outlaws will have guns" If you don't get this because you are too dense, it means that criminals, being lawbreakers will still obtain firearms while law-abiding citizens have no way of defending themselves. Think the cops will save your ass? Hope they have a response time of around 5 seconds, A homeowner with a firearm has less then that.

crime was lower in the wild west?
people bragging openly about how many people theyve killed?
maybe there was less crime, it was because no one was caught, or there were no laws against the useless shit. or maybe your just bullshitting.

"You and the one who is Canadian also did not rebel for your freedom from Britain."
why rebel? we had a vote for that in 2000, and we decided to stick with the empire (fuck knows why though). there is no point in getting killed for something that no one wants.

i know your point, i had just said it in my post. but its a pretty weak argument though. criminals arnet the only ones who shoot people. if all the school shooting kids did not have access to guns, there would be no shooting (duh).

"do the pros outweigh the cons? Yes."
uhh, apart from self defence, there is really no point for 99% of the population to have them, and that is the only pro that ive heard of. compare that to te con of every person with a gun has the ability to kill dozens of people easily. its a bit ironic saying that you need guns to defend yourself from other people with guns.

anyway, why is banning all guns so hard? people could hide them away, but once they use them, the police (unless there totally inept) should be able to confiscate them. the only ones with weapons would be crime syndicates, and they ussually leave general people alone. (the ones who they make the money from)

but the entire point of my post was missed apprently.

crime was lower in the wild west?
people bragging openly about how many people theyve killed?
maybe there was less crime, it was because no one was caught, or there were no laws against the useless shit. or maybe your just bullshitting."


Or maybe your knowledge of that time period in AMerica comes from watching Cowboy movies. Why would I bullshit you? People where caught, and it was death by hanging for murder in that time period, and there was no such thing as civil rights then.

we had a vote for that in 2000, and we decided to stick with the empire (fuck knows why though). there is no point in getting killed for something that no one wants

The possible not in the empire. but here it is. Sports, hobbies, self-defense all come from gun-ownership. so does crime. DO you think it's right for an unpopular idea to take effect? You feel that way about our war on terrorism.

i know your point, i had just said it in my post. but its a pretty weak argument though. criminals arnet the only ones who shoot people. if all the school shooting kids did not have access to guns, there would be no shooting (duh).

And the kids that do the school shootings aren't criminals, but misunderstood and often have low self-esteem, therefore they cannot be at fault right? now your full of shit

"do the pros outweigh the cons? Yes."
uhh, apart from self defence, there is really no point for 99% of the population to have them, and that is the only pro that ive heard of. compare that to te con of every person with a gun has the ability to kill dozens of people easily. its a bit ironic saying that you need guns to defend yourself from other people with guns.

The numbers vary, but you are totally wrong on this. first, if 99% of the population have them, there would be no gun laws, since nearly all the population has them, and the senator or representive who voted for gun control would most definatly not get re-elected. Also, the numbers vary, but your pretty clueless if you believe 99% of Americans own guns. Did you research that? pobably nothing more then a random number off the top of your head, and a typical stereotype of Americans. I guess you must be living in a shack made of car parts and wearing alligator hide in the outback with your pet dingos and wallabes huh?

anyway, why is banning all guns so hard? people could hide them away, but once they use them, the police (unless there totally inept) should be able to confiscate them.

Because we were given the right to keep and bear arms by the constitution, if we do away with this, then goes free speech and the right not to have soldiers quartered in our homes and all the other rights we've fought and died for. You are a typical gun-control nut who believes that once guns are confiscated then criminals will obey the law. That's the most absurd fucking idea you've come up with to date. usually you have good points.


the only ones with weapons would be crime syndicates, and they ussually leave general people alone. (the ones who they make the money from)

Which are criminals, who will make a profit of obtaining weapons for criminals. Missed that one did you not?

but the entire point of my post was missed apprently.

your post missed the point entirely. So you should be one to talk.

"Guns don't kill people...People kill people"

1. A gun is a tool. Sure it is a tool designed to kill, but it is a tool nonetheless and has no malice or will of it's own that sets it out to kill without being used by one of the tool weilding creatures known as humans.

2. People who kill intentionally with guns will find another way to kill if they cannot obtain a gun and are adamant about killing. People who are already murderers are less likely to blink at a second legal infraction involved in "owning a gun" and are obviously of little concern for violating laws or personal rights of others.

3. Countries with heavy gun laws may have fewer deaths due to gun shots, but how many people get killed annually at soccer games in those countries as opposed to how many people get killed in riots in American football games...Aggression and death will occur with our without the gun to blame it on.

4. Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates, and THE lowest death toll from gunshot wounds among their population. This is a country where every male above the age of 18 is issued a gun and trained to use it.

5. Banning guns will not solve the problem. Better training and information on guns will help reduce the accidental deaths due to guns. Improving education in general will reduce the number of criminals themselves. Providing better opportunities for legitimate avenues of monetary support for one's family and better/affordable health and psychiatric care would reduce the problems that lead people to criminal paths.

If you want to solve a problem, don't blame the symptom and attack it blindly, look at the disease itself and combat that directly, the symptom will clear itself up once the disease passes.

I hope something I have said causes you to think. Even if you don't agree, I encourage you to research the information I have presented and re-evaluate your stance if you feel guns should be banned.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChaosWyrm:
"Guns don't kill people...People kill people"

---

"Guns don't kill people. I do!"
-Rifleman, WarCraft 3

actually, more guns=less gun related crimes. Its the truth, its been proven in Ireland or Scotlnd or one of those type countries, i cant remember which one, but everyone gets gun training in school and almost everyone owns one, there are less gun related crimes there in ten years then there are in one year in the U.S. or visa verca, im not thinking clearly right now, but theres a hella lot less gun related crimes there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingenrage:
Im for guns, But I think. When there's more gunz on the streets there's much more murders.
more gunz \ more murders. (repeat until understood )

---

Wrong the bad guys will always have guns by taking the guns away you take awy the inosents chance to defend themselves.

the gun should never have been invented

quote:

---

Originally posted by RAOVQ:

something ive noticed, is that americans are the only ones who have this dependancy on guns. almost every other country knows that guns are used to kill. someone said that guns should be banned, and someone else said 'thats because you are candian'. the attitude of the world is diffrent to the attitude of america. im not sure why that is, but it fucking unnerving. the world leader is the only one with a massive fixation on owning weapons.

---

I can help you here. The main reason Americans are "dependant" upon guns is the fact that our government is the steamroller of the world. The founding fathers knew what power over the people a strong government would have (the power of life and death) after watching England at the time run roughshod over the Colonies.

That is why the second amendment is there, if we were to lose our rights to own guns it would not be long before the American government would treat us just like they treat everyone else in the world, like we were bought and paid for.

The armed populace is the only thing that keeps the "G" from doing whatever it wants, they know they can't fight all of us, some of us are too well armed.

And one more thing, as far as taking away all the guns or guns = murder/crime/whatever, I read where Boise,ID (where damn near everyone has a gun) had a microscopic GUN murder rate in 1999 compared to London for the same year (you remember London, that place where the government took away all the guns from the law abiding to make them safer?). Now if guns = kill! kill! kill!, could someone please tell me why a bunch of unarmed limeys are going absolutely apeshit?

it would be easier to take guns away from everybody on earth than to give a gun to everone. some people do not have the mental ability to be trusted with a weapon and some would refuse to own one, knowing its purpose.

this is a stupid argument cause you just repeat the same point over and over again.

militas don't do shit against the government. a bunch of rednecks touting a few rifles is not going to do shit against an army. if the "G" [sic] wanted to burn you all in your beds, all the guns in the world would not help (look at weaver, even the little kid was carrying a rifle, although what the state did to them was discusting). your kidding yourself if you think that you can defend yourself against them.

"The armed populace is the only thing that keeps the "G" from doing whatever it wants"
yeah, good one.
i can see all the crappy two bit militas really influencing parliment now. the government is expanding its powers like never before, and there is not one reasonable voice of reason. your living in a dream world, you might be able to scare local authorities and your neighbours, but you can't shot down a jet with a rifle, and firebombs hurt.

That makes sence if everyone in a town has a gun what would make a criminal want to robb a place he knows is armed? Many laws just complicate matters, The hiways with out speed limits in montana had less death in then years thans the first six mouths a speed limit was put on.

>>>~~~~~~CTR~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>

Do you live in Montana?

Have you been there?

Do you know that those highways without speed limits are completely covered with potholes, some the size of my dining room table. The state is who pays for highway upkeep, through speeding tickets and such. With no speed limit, no money, no upkeep, not by the state anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by RAOVQ:


this is a stupid argument cause you just repeat the same point over and over again.

.

---

That's because you refuse to see their point. An armed populace is a safe populace. They give facts over and over proving that this is true, yet

"this is a stupid argument cause you just repeat the same point over and over again"

Is what you come up with. You too are argueing the same point. Don't even try to deny it.

Taking away guns from everyone in the world doesnt stop anything, look around totse, plans for zip guns, potatoe guns, hell you can kill someone with a slingshot. If the US populace happened to revolt, we could take down the government easy, you know why? MILITARY OFFICERS ARE PART OF THE POPULACE. They cant be court martialed for defending thier rights, especially if theres no government. The government cant do shit, Ill gladly give up my membership in the Marine Corps to defend mine and others rights.

You say that people are going to kill if they really want to, regardless of whether they have guns or not. You can't deny, however, that they make it really easy for people to kill. I couldn't imagine a pissed off teenager walking into school and massacring his science class with a slingshot, zip gun or even a fucking knife, because only a gun lets you pump round after round into frightened colleagues and co-workers from a wonderfully safe distance.
Global Dominator, you say that Boise, ID, has a microscopic gun murder rate compared to London. Well, London has a population of 8-9 million, whats the population of this Boise place? Fuck all probably. Whats the gun murder rate in, say Los Angeles or New York (a comparably sized city)? A shitload more, thats what.
Two comparable examples: In Dunblane, Scotland, a man walked into a primary school with a load of handguns and killed about 20 5-9 year old kids, a teacher (i think) and then himself. After gun control came in, a similar incident occurred where a guy attacked kids at a nursery with a bowie knife, and was disarmed. He disfigured a few children, and the nursery nurse that tackled him. Both extremely fucked up incidents, but in the later one, had the guy had a gun loads of CHILDREN would have died. If he had easy access to one, whats the betting he'd have walked into that nursery with a shotgun or some of those fully automatic weapons Texans seem so fond of?
The right to bear arms came into effect after the US had formed itself by VIOLENT REVOLUTION against an oppressor, and (i think my history is correct, sue me if its not) it had just experienced Civil War. Fuck me, but 250 years ago the right to bear arms was a geat idea, when life was cheap and you were under threat of being fucked with by the British Empire or your fellow country men. It seems as though it was established when Americans were under threat, and also had the power to topple their governments if they abused the people. Nowadays you are a huge superpower that can most definitely handle itself, and you're as likely to have a revolution as my father is of having a hysterectomy.
Just keep swallowing the propaganda, you're safe as long as you have your gun, you can kill them back when they've shot you from behind in a dark piss soaked vomit splashed street in Shitsville, Arizona for $5 to feed their crack habits. Swallow. Breathe easy. Eat Pot-Roast and Macaroni Cheese. Smile. Start a war to look big. Make tiny children swear allegiance to the flag a la Hitler. Elect liars thieves and gangsters to office. Blame rock-stars when your society fails and kids kill kids in miltary style operations on their former classmates. Go to Church. Pray. Kill yourself.

Thus far all of my points remain valid and have yet to be refuted in a fashion that would adequately tear them down as logical arguments. Am I to take this as acknowledgement by all that my points are valid and accurate and that you do not refute them?

ChaosWyrm, I happen to agree with you and your points.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CuriousMonky:
ChaosWyrm, I happen to agree with you and your points.

---

Thank you CuriousMonkey.

Your welcome.

P.S. You spelled my name wrong. lol.

Instead of taking guns away and beleiving that will prevent murder, why not go to the root of the problem and figure out why people kill and figure out how to defuse that motivation or the reason why people kill.

One of you mentioned if people did not have guns kids would have not shot up their school. I doubt this. If they wanted to kill people in their school and did not have guns they could have found another way such as setting the school on fire and locking their peers inside the school and allowed them to burn to death.

So instead of looking for a easy way out (which is outlawing guns), search for the root of the problem by figuring out why people do this type of shit.

"figuring out why people do this type of shit"
people have been doing it for thousands of years, its pretty obvious why. have you ever felt like killing someone (or hurting them bad)? it is motivation and means. wanting to kill is one thing, but having the power to kill without thinking is another.

but, a gun can kill dozens easily. a 5 year old can use a gun to kill, but they cannot weild an axe or a knife.

"setting the school on fire and locking their peers inside"
in japan, where guns are more controlled, the usual method is stabbing. the last one i heard was a caretaker going mental and in the end only a handful of students were hurt before he was disarmed. if he had had a gun, he could have easily (i assume) killed 20 or 30.

anyway, it is just common sense to make sure that kids cannot get a gun in any case, and that the only adults that do have them are stable and have a good purpose.

If someone has a gun, whether for hunting, recreation, or self-defense, that's a good enough reason.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by RAOVQ:
"figuring out why people do this type of shit"
people have been doing it for thousands of years, its pretty obvious why. have you ever felt like killing someone (or hurting them bad)? it is motivation [b]and means. wanting to kill is one thing, but having the power to kill without thinking is another.

Yes I have but normally I am able to keep the urge under control. But some instances some kids do not keep it under control. A couple kids couple years ago want to to shoot up their school, high jack a plane and fly them into a big city. If I wanted to kill someone who pissed me off, I would kill just them and not plan to cause any further chaos. In my opinion these kids were unstable.

when I say we should figure out why, I mean finding out how to detect the unstable (and potentionally violent) people and figure out how to defuse the possible violence before it happens.

I can't be bothered reading the rest of the posts, so I'm just gonna post my stuff. Guns are bad, they kill things. They should be banned. They should be banned. They should be banned.

Knives are made to cut things, such as bread, meat, fish, wood. Some people use them to kill people. Cars are made for transport and recreation, although sometimes they kill people. Fire is used to cook things, to destroy rubbish, to clean things, to heat things, but sometimes it is used to kill things.

GUNS on the other hand ARE MADE FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF KILLING THINGS. Other stuff: not made to kill things. Guns: made to kill things.

Taking away guns is not the same as taking away freedom of speech, because freedom of speech doesn't cause internal bleeding and gunshot wounds. Freedom of speech doesn't pierce someone's skin, rip up their veins & organs, shatter their bones and leave a great gaping hole in them. Guns do. Guns are bad. No one should own a gun, because they guns are bad. Guns are bad.

Nationalism is dumb, patriotism is dumb, subliminal messages are cool.

gnool makes a very valid point. guns ARE only designed to kill people, nothing else. sure, they can be used as "self-defence", but in the case of any sane country, you don't need guns for self defence, the police deal with it. in the usa case, taking away guns would have little affect, because all you redneck pinnys have about a billion guns, and about a billion ways of creating them. further restrictions on guns MAY have small affect stopping little kiddies from blowing each other to smithereens, but it is unlikely. the reason the usa has so many problems with guns is because they are the usa, and nothing is going to change that. a lot of people have guns. saying "lets take them from them" won't work, because they are americans, and theyll just keep them if they really want to. proper education about why "the american way" is wrong is the only way to stop everyone being so stupid about it. but that will NEVER happen.

gnool, you own

quote:

---

Gnool, you own

---

Yes, yes I do.

quote:

---

sure, they can be used as "self- defence", but in the case of any sane country, you don't need guns for self defence, the police deal with it.

---

9 times out of 10 you'll be long dead and the perpetrator will have gotten away by the time the police get there. That's assuming you can call the police and they dispatch immediately to your location. I have called the police before when i heard gunshots and they didn;t even show up till' the next fucking day! Someone would have been long dead by then. The only person you can depend on for your safety is you.

People keep consistently missing this point time and time again. If you ban guns, it's not going to stop the gang-bangers and other killers from getting guns, because they never got their guns legally in the first fucking place!

Same thing with all the gun restrictions. You think people that do drive-by shootings go "Oh fuck, my gun is postban and has a clip size greater than 10 rounds.". No! Laws are only there for the people that wish to obey them. The people that break the law obviously don't care about it, so the only people that pay are the law abiding citizens.

if I was a criminal, I wouldn't think twice about jacking some fool's ass in a gun banned environment with my gun I got on the black market, because I know that the law is just helping me victimize him because he wont have a gun and I will since I don't agree with the law.

Think people!

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 08-17-2002).]

that wasn't my point. my point was, in other countries... e.g. AUSTRALIA, you don't have nutters running around with guns, so its not a problem. i didn't say that banning guns would help, either, or restricting them- you need to change the mindset of the people, so that there becomes no need to use them as self-defence because theres noone trying to kill you all the time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalez:
you need to change the mindset of the people, so that there becomes no need to use them as self-defence because theres noone trying to kill you all the time.

---

Get back to me when people stop getting robbed and murdered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalez:
i didn't say that banning guns would help, either, or restricting them- you need to change the mindset of the people, so that there becomes no need to use them as self-defence because theres noone trying to kill you all the time.

---

Take a reality break, step down from your naive idealistic point of view, and face the facts. Please go back and read all of the VERY RELEVENT other posts in this thread, especially mine back on page one. I hate repeating myself just because people refuse to listen to the truth the first time.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnool:
I can't be bothered reading the rest of the posts, so I'm just gonna post my stuff. Guns are bad, they kill things. They should be banned. They should be banned. They should be banned.

---

Then we can't be bothered to care about your opinion if you refuse to read the other posts for fear of our logic overcoming your convictions.

"Convictions are a greater enemy of truth by far than are lies" -- Frederick Nietzsche

Frederick Nietzsche was a psycho who thought that morals did the world no good. He eventually got institutionalised after seeing a horse getting flogged in the street (he ran up to it, hugged it started weeping & then had a mental breakdown).

The reason why I didn't read everyone elses stuff was because I just wanted to post my opinion, I didn't want to read everyone elses. "Not corpses the creator seeks, fellow creators the creator seeks" -- Frederick Nietzsche, "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" (I think that's where that quote came from. I know that quote has no significance whatsoever to what I just said.)

what logic? so far none of you have used logic in your arguments

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalez:
what logic? so far none of you have used logic in your arguments

---

"They should be banned, They should be banned"


And that's logic? So far you have not made one valid point yet.

"Guns Kill People"

As sure as I would Fuck Daisy Fuentes if she was naked in front of me telling me to fuck her, They do kill people. Did you think they give you advice on everyday matters? You are missing a point, Guns only kill when they are loaded, aimed, and the trigger is pulled, and they don't do that by themselves. Cars Kill more then guns, why not ban them?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
Cars Kill more then guns, why not ban them?
[/B]

---

I've already addressed this issue. Cars primary purpose is transport, guns' primary purpose is [u]death.[/u]

You don't hear about kids who steal cars and run down 20 people at their school, but you do hear about kids who buy uzis at target and go on a killing spree. Seeing subliminal messages are cool, I'd like to repeat myself.

Cars' primary purpose is transport, guns' primary purpose is [u]death.[/u]

Well it's too fuckin' late. They have already been made, the criminals already have millions of them, and all banning would do at this point is take the guns out of the hands of those that choose follow the laws (i.e. would actually be worse than having them legal).

too hard; don't try?

americans seem very agitated at the mere sugestion that guns should be in any way resticted, and start pointing out constition lines and that they need to defend themselves from criminals like they are reading from a script. if anyone looked calmly at the situation without getting emotional and hyper-ventillating then they would see that the current free-for-all situation with gun control is not working. people with no buisness and even less training in guns are keeping them in glove boxes and shooting other drivers on the road. kids are nicking them out of thier stupid parents boxes because they havent learnt what padlocks are for, or why ammo should be stored seperatly.

i don't buy the whole 'the crims have them so i need one too' argument. if things are so bad where the only defence you have is a public display of a weapon then taking weapons off the street can only be a good thing. if you live in a middle-upper class white neighbourhood then a weapon is not much good for protection unless you use it.

Dark_Magneto, your argument seems to be 'american society is already in too steep a decline so that more laws would just cause chaos'. thats pretty weak. if a society has to base its laws around not what is fair and sensible but around 'how far can we push it before they fight back' then its no wonder you have so many people shooting other.

Fuck it, ban everything that shoots a projectile, watch it send the crime rate through the roof.

I know I would be alot more hesitant to break into someone's house if its possible that they have a gun. Might as well go back to feudal Japan weapons and have to go back to using skills to properly defend yourself. I'd rather have a gun and never need it than need a gun at some point and never have it, I hope you can see my logic here.

I'm not a big fan of being victimized, used to happen to me alot, so I'm not keen on getting jacked as soon as I turn around to leave the ATM.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gnool:
I've already addressed this issue. Cars primary purpose is transport, [b]guns' primary purpose is [u]death.[/u]

You don't hear about kids who steal cars and run down 20 people at their school, but you do hear about kids who buy uzis at target and go on a killing spree. Seeing subliminal messages are cool, I'd like to repeat myself.

Cars' primary purpose is transport, guns' primary purpose is [u]death.[/u][/B]

---

And you don't buy Uzi's at target either. Guns primary purpose is to kill. No shit. I asked before, what did you think they are for?

"i don't buy the whole 'the crims have them so i need one too' argument. if things are so bad where the only defence you have is a public display of a weapon then taking weapons off the street can only be a good thing. if you live in a middle-upper class white neighbourhood then a weapon is not much good for protection unless you use it"

Of course you don't. You've never been the victim of a crime before have you? Are you oblivious to what anyone here has said? You don't get it do you? CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO GET GUNS, NO MATTER HOW MUCH YOU TRY TO RESTRICT THEM. I made that nice and big not because I feel like screaming, but because you seem to ignore whatever anyone tells you. If i didn't have to worry about being a victim of a violent crime, then I wouldn't have any problem with restrictions. But since that is not the case, then I will continue to carry to defend myself, and my family. My wife carries because there is always the butt-ugly man who can't get laid and will try to force himself on women, and when he tries to do so, she will put a pill in his head, or pull it out, and the man will not only lose his hard-on but his rectal control as well.

fools, listen to what theyre saying. guns kill people. lol. even if theyre criminals, the majority of them never pull the trigger, and they wouldnt get guns if they dont need to. no one else seems to have this fascination with guns, and oh, what a surprise, no one else has this problem with them do they.

at a risk of offending someone: the us constitution is stupidly outdated, originally put in when everyone was scared of the brits tryna rape them. now, though, the brits are usa's puppet state (like australia ) and therers no reason to fuel the danged redneck khuns

shut up, you're american, your say in anything is biased towards stupidity

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalez:
fools, listen to what theyre saying. guns kill people. lol. even if theyre criminals, the majority of them never pull the trigger, and they wouldnt get guns if they dont need to. no one else seems to have this fascination with guns, and oh, what a surprise, no one else has this problem with them do they.

---

Even in countries where handguns are illegal there are gunshot wound and death statistics greater than 0. How do you rationalize someone being shot to death in a country where guns are banned, while a country like Switzerland, where every male over the age of 18 owns a firearm (typically an assault rifle or SMG of all things), has an equal or lower gunshot fatality statistic?

quote:

---

at a risk of offending someone: the us constitution is stupidly outdated, originally put in when everyone was scared of the brits tryna rape them. now, though, the brits are usa's puppet state (like australia ) and therers no reason to fuel the danged redneck khuns

---

Ok, first off, You live in Australia, so technically, your opinion on US Domestic Policies and Constitutional Amendments are neither going to make a difference, nor be based on a full understanding of life IN the United States.
Your ignorant stereotypes and antipathy for the United States in general is clouding your ability to have a rational and logical discussion...Why do you care so much about whether we carry guns on our own soil? It really doesn't affect you...Unless you plan on coming to the US and you're afraid you're going to get shot for spouting your anti-American crap over here.

quote:

---

shut up, you're american, your say in anything is biased towards stupidity

---

That's a very rational, unbiased, intelligent generalization you've made there, cap'n bigot.
Address the issue, stop hiding behind your bigotry when confronted.

As for "stupidity"...so far, YOU have demonstrated more of that than any of those posting in this thread from the United States. I don't judge you for being Australian...I judge you for just being an idiot...It's not Australia's fault that you afflict that nation with your presence.

Killing someone in america is a crime right??
All guns do is kill,its doesn't take any skill or wit to pull the trigger,so whats the point in alowing citizens so arm themselves with something that is used to commit illegal acts??Sure,criminals are going to get guns,but as guns are phased out ,the abundance of illegal guns would decline aswell.

in conclusion,if people want to defend themselves,let them do it with something that can't be used to kill masses of people(aka martial arts or something that can't be harnessed so easliy,it makes sense doesn't it? you wouldn't alow people to defend their homes with A-bombs would you?)

quote:

---

Sure,criminals are going to get guns,but as guns are phased out ,the abundance of illegal guns would decline aswell.

---

That's where your wrong. Besides, even if guns were banned, people that really wanted them would either get them on th black market or start making their own, which isn't too hard to do if you have the right tools and knowhow.

quote:

---

in conclusion,if people want to defend themselves,let them do it with something that can't be used to kill masses of people(aka martial arts or something that can't be harnessed so easliy

---

Then it would turn into the feudal eastern country scenarios where the shoguns of the dark own all. Well, at least until the illegally armed thugs come in.

quote:

---

you wouldn't alow people to defend their homes with A-bombs would you?

---

You can't equate a gun with a nuclear weapon. The comparison is flawed by any stretch of the imagination when you look at the capabilities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:

in conclusion,if people want to defend themselves,let them do it with something that can't be used to kill masses of people(aka martial arts or something that can't be harnessed so easliy,it makes sense doesn't it? you wouldn't alow people to defend their homes with A-bombs would you?)

---

Ben, you aren't listening are you? Martial arts do not do jackshit to an armed criminal. That't so obvious, but of course you missed that, you are known for not paying attention to the posts in the topic. If you don't know what the hell is being said, stay the fuck out.

why is a A bomb such a flawed comparison??
sure,a A bomb is alot more powerful then a gun but then again,a gun is alot more power than you'd need to defend yourself with.


why should i listen to you??(joe boo) All i'm saying is that guns kill people,easily.THEY KILL PEOPLE.giving people a weapon of death should be illegal.Even if people can still get guns,they would be illegal so people would be deterred.All you cunts care about is self defence,killing someone with a projectile ISN'T self defence.

You cunts are so stupid,you believe that your the greatest nation on earth while you don't even care enough about your children to stop them having access to guns.ANYTHING is better than guns,you'd have a lot more trouble mass killing people with some form of martial arts.

[This message has been edited by Conscript Ben (edited 08-25-2002).]

Armed criminals are a problem in every country in the world,but the answer isn't giving every redneck poofter a gun.Its idiotic.

theres a line between defence and manslaughter,with a gun,this line is very fine,so fine that a 5 year old kid can cross it.With any other weapon,this line is more easily spotted and people are less likely to be killed,whether is accidental or on purpose.

[This message has been edited by Conscript Ben (edited 08-25-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:
Armed criminals are a problem in every country in the world,but the answer isn't giving every redneck poofter a gun.Its idiotic.

---

One must understand that the US is not like any other country in the world. It is a melting pot of various cultures. That has made the US into quite a violent nation. Granted, the big G has dominant control over its subjects. But the big G is dependent on the economy. That also includes the black market economy which is run by EXTREMELY VIOLENT street-gangs and druglords.

The innocent, law-abiding Americans are constantly being overtaken by this violent culture of guns, drugs, and greed. If we are to outlaw guns, the violent culture run by the lowlifes would takeover.

"But you have the police to take care of that." HA!!!!! The police are no better than the thugs who constantly plague our streets. By the time they get to a crime scene, the victim is dead and the thug has run off. The police are dependent on that violent culture so they can keep their jobs.

America needs guns to keep those fucked-up thugs and crime syndicates under control. We are a VERY... VERY paranoid nation. This isn't the 60's(free love... all for one). This is the 21st century for crying out loud!!!! We must be on our toes and have eyes in the back of our heads 24/7. Any deviation from that rule, and kiss your well-being goodbye!

If people only want to defend themselves,give them something that will ONLY defend themselves(not risk the life of others,eg some sort of martial arts or tazer or something).

America has problems but poeple still shouldn't take the law into his/her own hands.just think,your walking down the street one day and some drugo runs up to you with a knife,the court isn't going to accept "well,he was asking for it" as a valid reson for manslaughter.Giving people guns is just giving people the means to commit illegal acts(weather on purpose or by accident).Its like giving a 2 year old boy a knife,you know that he COULD use it for self defence but most likely he will play around and hurt someone.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KamikazePimp:
One must understand that the US is not like any other country in the world. It is a melting pot of various cultures. That has made the US into quite a violent nation. Granted, the big G has dominant control over its subjects. But the big G is dependent on the economy. That also includes the black market economy which is run by EXTREMELY VIOLENT street-gangs and druglords.

The innocent, law-abiding Americans are constantly being overtaken by this violent culture of guns, drugs, and greed. If we are to outlaw guns, the violent culture run by the lowlifes would takeover.

"But you have the police to take care of that." HA!!!!! The police are no better than the thugs who constantly plague our streets. By the time they get to a crime scene, the victim is dead and the thug has run off. The police are dependent on that violent culture so they can keep their jobs.

America needs guns to keep those fucked-up thugs and crime syndicates under control. We are a VERY... VERY paranoid nation. This isn't the 60's(free love... all for one). This is the 21st century for crying out loud!!!! We must be on our toes and have eyes in the back of our heads 24/7. Any deviation from that rule, and kiss your well-being goodbye!

---

yacool

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:
If people only want to defend themselves,give them something that will ONLY defend themselves(not risk the life of others,eg some sort of martial arts or tazer or something).

America has problems but poeple still shouldn't take the law into his/her own hands.just think,your walking down the street one day and some drugo runs up to you with a knife,the court isn't going to accept "well,he was asking for it" as a valid reson for manslaughter.Giving people guns is just giving people the means to commit illegal acts(weather on purpose or by accident).Its like giving a 2 year old boy a knife,you know that he COULD use it for self defence but most likely he will play around and hurt someone.

---

Martial arts doesn't always work. Can a 68 year old man with a bad back hold himself up against a huge young man in very good shape, even if he knew any martial art? Tazers don't always work. battery might not work, or there may be more then one assailant. Wait Mr, while I replace my tazer batteries and retract the darts. If criminals went along with that, then that would be great.

As for giving a two year old a knife, that's not a good example, since the kid has no concept of Self-Defense at that age.

I don't think giveing a 68 year old a gun would be a good idea either,thats probably MORE dangerous than a crimminal.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:
I don't think giveing a 68 year old a gun would be a good idea either,thats probably MORE dangerous than a crimminal.

---

You make an uneducated assumption about 68 year olds. You also seem to be missing the entire beginning of this thread wherein we discussed how gun EDUCATION is the answer rather than making them illegal. And it seems you are also completely ignoring BOTH posts I've made about Switzerland. You are ignoring all of the valid counterpoints and are instead driving ahead like a rabid dog with the repetition of your own views as if trying to ram them down our throats like the cock of catholicism...

Until you address our issues, you are just pitching propaganda...and the propaganda you are pitching is the fascist party line...Next you'll want to burn books on science and kill off the people who can teach anyone to fight in a way that can hurt someone...

But since you started the scenario business....let's examine this one:

You and your wife and kids decide to go see Disney on Ice or some other such family experience...As you are leaving the show in the early evening, you realize you need to stop at the ATM to get some cash for tomorrow so you pull into the bank.
As you step away from the ATM with your cash, you see two men approaching your car while another runs up to you and cracks you in the knee with a baseball bat, snagging your cash from your hand and heading out to the car to find your wife and kids and do nasty stuff to them while you're forced to watch from the ground with your shattered knee.

Version A) You have nothing but your uber-l33t black belt in tournament karate developed for "self defense" consisting of nothing useful at the moment to protect your family from three full grown men armed with baseball bats and knives when you have a shattered knee-cap.

Version B) You happen to have a 6-shot revolver in your boot which you can draw and fire. -note- how and where you fire is up to you, the first shot into the air should be sufficient to get their attention and have the police well on their way. Then if necessary you could shoot them in non vital areas that would incapacitate or stop them in order to protect yourself and your family.

Which version would you prefer?
Why?

Now ask yourself...."Why do I think a gun can ONLY kill?"
Have you not yet realized that more people die every year from drunk driving accidents than gunshots?...I don't hear you trying to get alcohol banned. Not that it would work, it was tried back in the '20s...

Incidentally...Attacking the intelligence and comprehension of "Americans" while using ignorant stereotypes and spoon-fed propaganda as your support...demonstrates something about yourself.

first of all,i was using the 68 year old man as an example becuase joe boo said that he could hardly hold himself up,you may not beleive this so take it up with boo.

Second of all,whats this shit about burning books and catholic bullshit?ANd by the way,a black belt in ANYHTING would be enough to hurt soemone badly so don't start dissing that.

Third of all,that situation you came up with is a very slim one.Carrying a gun around with you on the SLIGHT chance that you'll get bashed or something is STUPIDITY.Your more likely to fall asleep during this disney on ice concert and your kid pulls your gun out and caps someone(yeah i know this sounds pretty stupid but its more likely to happen than your little story).

Fourth of all,as gnool said,alcohol's main purpose is to get pissed(or treat would or something),guns is to KILL.

Maybe you should whine at your government for not making your crapy country more safe to live in,but guns arn't the answer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:
first of all,i was using the 68 year old man as an example becuase joe boo said that he could hardly hold himself up,you may not beleive this so take it up with boo.

Second of all,whats this shit about burning books and catholic bullshit?ANd by the way,a black belt in ANYHTING would be enough to hurt soemone badly so don't start dissing that.

Third of all,that situation you came up with is a very slim one.Carrying a gun around with you on the SLIGHT chance that you'll get bashed or something is STUPIDITY.Your more likely to fall asleep during this disney on ice concert and your kid pulls your gun out and caps someone(yeah i know this sounds pretty stupid but its more likely to happen than your little story).

Fourth of all,as gnool said,alcohol's main purpose is to get pissed(or treat would or something),guns is to KILL.

Maybe you should whine at your government for not making your crapy country more safe to live in,but guns arn't the answer.

---

You missed every single point that he made.

first of all,i was using the 68 year old man as an example becuase joe boo said that he could hardly hold himself up,you may not beleive this so take it up with boo.

Are you so ignorant that you think it's easier for a 68 year old man/woman who could shatter their hip easily to use kung fu then it is to smoothly draw and fire a 38 into someone?

Second of all,whats this shit about burning books and catholic bullshit?ANd by the way,a black belt in ANYHTING would be enough to hurt soemone badly so don't start dissing that.

The not understanding about catholics and book burning is a typical response of someone not having anything to say because the person is right, and you are flustered. And just so you know, your average YMCA trained amateur boxer can savagely dismantle a black belts ass in a matter of seconds. and not everyone can make the rank of black belt over night. Also, when you meet someone in any martial art that can fight on the ground, provide proof please.

Third of all,that situation you came up with is a very slim one.Carrying a gun around with you on the SLIGHT chance that you'll get bashed or something is STUPIDITY.Your more likely to fall asleep during this disney on ice concert and your kid pulls your gun out and caps someone(yeah i know this sounds pretty stupid but its more likely to happen than your little story).

It's not stupidity, it's common sense. Is not paying attention to your toddler because you assume he won't run into a busy street smart? And chances are, the man who got cracked probably did happen. Don't make the assumption that this would never happen, you live in a different country.

Fourth of all,as gnool said,alcohol's main purpose is to get pissed(or treat would or something),guns is to KILL.

First, unless you are stupid, you don't drink wood alcohol. second, getting drunk causes health problems, and most violent crime. As do guns. why not ban both?

Fine,i don't care about either guns or booze,the world probably would be better off without both.

And i'm not sure about the black belts you got over there but all the ones i know could beat the living shit out of some pussy boxer(YMCA or whatever,of course there are exeptions but i'm not going to go into that).

I'm sure someone ,at some point did get cracked with a baseball bat etc happened but the point, is that carrying round a gun arond would only ever make the situation worse.

You may think "well,if my wife and kids were getting kicked around while i'm on the ground" but that would be a very rare case,and that WOULD be a good time to use a gun.
But most times someone would use a gun would be when their walking down the street and some dude mugs him,he thinks "hey,i'll scare this cunt off with my gun",this would make him startled and more likely to try and hurt you,this is not good,in any situation.
but bringing a gun into the situation would only make things worse.Think about it,most disputes could be solved quiker and easier without a gun wielding maniac.The presance of a gun makes everyone more agitated.

Sure,if you ONLY ever used a gun for defending yourself from a serious threat then i would like the idea,but,at present,most people with guns don't use them for self-defence,they just use that as an excuse.

seriously,how many people who have a gun have ever been in a life threating situation where the only choice was to stick it to them.

I would guess at about .1% of the "gun weilding" population(if even that)

What about those of us who just like guns? We learna bout them and keep collections and stuff. Plus, if you banned guns, what would happen to people who devote their lives to gunsmithing and such. They are fucked right out of their jobs because someone doesnt want a gun to fall into the hands that it has already fallen into.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:
seriously,how many people who have a gun have ever been in a life threating situation where the only choice was to stick it to them.

I would guess at about .1% of the "gun weilding" population(if even that)

---

And your point? It's better to carry and not be a statistic. As for examples, I can name my wife, my uncle, and myself. only mine was not in any relation to crime

I bet that all those examples you used(except your one ,cus you recon your inb the militry or some shit)it wasn't a life-threatning situation where they HAD to use a gun to aviod further harm.

AS for the other guy,we have gun collectors here in australia to,if people want to colect guns,let them.Of course the guns are disabled so they can't be fired,but if soemone wants to collect them,let them.

And as for gunsmisths and stuff,who cares,living in the modern world that we do changes happen,so i spose they'll have to get a new job.

Conscript Ben:

your arguments are still based on theory and incomplete data. You are having a hard time grasping the reality of the situation and are falling back on utopian ideals which are unproven, inviable, and uninformed. Perhaps there is a misunderstanding as to what we are trying to say....let me clear it up...

Guns should not be banned, but they should be regulated by laws requiring education into gun safety, useage, laws, and effects. Here in Texas we have a concealed carry law. What this law does is as follows:

Individuals may take a certification class and submit documentation to the State Law enforcement agency indicating completion of this certification class. The class teaches HOW to shoot a gun, WHEN it's appropriate and when it's not, HOW to practice gun safety so your child doesn't take the gun and accidentally or on purpose shoot himself or others, HOW to care for your gun, WHAT the laws are on gun possession and useage, DISCOURAGES useage of the firearm unless in absolute need, then promotes shooting to stop the threat rather than kill the threat, etc etc.
After you submit this document to the State Law enforcement agency, they run a full background check on you to ensure you don't have a criminal history and summarily issue a conceal carry license if you pass the check. This license entitles you to carry a handgun responsibly and only under full concealment (ie: it cannot be seen). If you pull the weapon or fire it at someone, you are held responsible for your actions. Liscens to own and carry is not license to kill. The laws for conceal-carry are even stricter than the general gun laws in Texas. However, the conceal-carry law has reduced the gun problem by a significant margin. Why?
1.) More gun owners are better educated in gun laws and gun safety, as well as how and when to use or not use the weapon.
2.) Criminals are less likely to attack an individual who they cannot be sure is unarmed, thus reducing the stimulus behind both intentional and accidental shootings.
3.) Law enforcement has grounds to crack down on both visible armaments, and concealed weapons which are not licensed to be carried as such.
4.) Criminals are prevented from obtaining the license thus making their possession of any handgun more difficult to get away with and increasing the penalties when they are caught.
5.) Every conceal-carry licensed individual is on file with the State Justice department, complete with fingerprints and police record and full background information thus making it easier for law enforcement to prosecute and locate individuals who commit crimes of gun violence and are licensed to conceal carry.


I hope this helps you to understand somewhat the points addressed.

Plain and simple, you cannot judge what you do not know, you cannot know what you do not understand, you cannot understand what you have not experienced.

As for the hypothetical situations proposed and your doubt as to the viability of my situation proposition....You'd be surprised how viable it is in the United States. If you doubt me, come to Houston or Los Angeles or New York and let me show you around. Or, read the local news stories from the United States...

I see your point but still...Carring around a weapon of that potential for self defence doesn't serve a purpose.

IF people want to defend themselves so much then why don't they make something that can defend without the possibility of killing or cripling.Its just a thought.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:
I see your point but still...Carring around a weapon of that potential for self defence doesn't serve a purpose.

IF people want to defend themselves so much then why don't they make something that can defend without the possibility of killing or cripling.Its just a thought.

---

How does carrying a gun legally for self-defense not serve a purpose. That is the purpose, self-defense.

As for not having to shoot, Most criminals are greenhorn sphincters who would run when you pull a gun on them. Crime prevented, and they will think long and hard about attempting it on another, for fear that they will be armed. And if they keep coming at you instead of fleeing, shooting someone in the balls has a VERY good deterrant effect, and thereby removes any chance of his offspring from entering the gene pool.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Conscript Ben:
IF people want to defend themselves so much then why don't they make something that can defend without the possibility of killing or cripling.Its just a thought.

---

Perhaps if you could invent such a tool, you would become a wealthy man and a hero to the masses.

yeah,ok

i live in canada they never tryed banning guns but they try to make us register them,, so then they know who has guns so they can take them later i say thats bull shit all guns should stay so we can all have one

I say> fckit! let them keep the guns > lets rather spend money on advanced medical systems [ guns and ppl killing each other will always be around] so that we can fix you after you get shot. Hell .. it'll be fun .. who says you can't shoot his leg off from this distance ? I'm off to play my Pc game Quake and listen to my mm cds *clap**smile**choke*

Canadians are Eleutherophobes.

Actually after noticing Mr. No's posting I should say that EGALITARIANS are eleutherophobes.
Canadians in general would probably feel better about a Bill of Rights, its only that there are not enough of them, they are ruled from Britain, and it's too cold to stand outside of a government facility for six hours protesting. ?
Of course White Americans seem more ambivalent than ever about surrendering to tyranny.

[This message has been edited by SATURNROCKETX (edited 09-10-2002).]

guns are nothing but good. Criminals love it when the victims have nothing to defend themselves with. if some prick tries to rob me, it's not going to be an open casket funeral.
I'd much rather be shot than run over with a car or anything else.
Plus people have more respect for you when you have a 1911 in your hand

[This message has been edited by ubermutant (edited 09-11-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Night Stalker 1978:
It's an evil cycle. I'd rather deal with an evil cycle than lose my rights. We should ban feminists and lesbians, just for good measure.

---

BAN LESBIANS?? R U CRAZY?!! i guess u havnt had that experiance yet... so sad

quote:

---

Originally posted by skalez:
that wasn't my point. my point was, in other countries... e.g. AUSTRALIA, you don't have nutters running around with guns, so its not a problem.

---

Well there was that itty bitty problem a few years with that Martin Bryant guy down in Tasmania......
after which the Government outlawed semi-automatic rifles and started a buyback scheme

One thing I'd like to know about the Second Amendment to the American Constitution/Bill of Rights wuteva... the one about the right to bear arms

Like the exact wording... and any legal applications of it in the past...

eg, What exactly does 'bear arms' mean?
Does it meant you're allowed to own/carry/load & aim/fire a weapon
And under what circumstances this arm bearing is allowed...

TigerJK, I'll answer your question

These guys speak "bureaucratese," No wonder nobody can understand them.

The right to bear arms, roughly means, to keep, own, and to fire a gun. Other background advice is that you can't just go out and shoot someone for fun or something, but the law will excuse murder on three occasions:

1. You kill someone in self-defense
2. You kill to remove someone from your property (you can use whatever force it takes to remove a trespasser)
3. If your killing is a casualty of war

And as far as I know, guns shouldn't really be banned. In Chicago in 1999, only 20% of the guns owned and registered were used in crimes. Does that mean sooner or later that the other 80% will be aimed your direction? Not really. Not to mention that nobody really looks at the guy behind the weapon. Envision a movie, its not the human making that noise, its the gun. A gun can only fire if its loaded, a round is in the chamber, safety is off, and the trigger is pulled.

And anyways, Bad news sells more papers than good news. Bottom line: Guns are used for a bit more than murder, there are as many reasons to own a gun as there are guns.

PS: To the US government, rewrite your constitution to make it speak English and not "bureaucratese."

Have a nice day...

"no one else has guns, why should we?" is that it? is that why we dont want to let our selves have guns?

Tell me this, IF a gunman went into your childrens school and murdered aload of kids, and your kids were killed, you WOULD want guns to be banned. get sence man there are too many loonys who have guns in America.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
What should be banned after are knives, rocks, baseball bats, glass bottles.

and of course free speech next.

---

then porn lol

It's not rocket science to figure out:

Everywhere that guns have been banned, gun-related crime has risen.

Every genocide of the 20th Century was preceded by some form of gun-control/gun ban.

Don't believe me? Go do the research yourself to verify or discredit my claim. Don't come back with a sophomoric "Nuh-uh!" Look it up. Question everything. This is not a "thought-experiment" where you can build up a logical case using preconcieved suppositions such as "guns make it easier to kill people, therefore guns must be banned!" We live in a real world, with real problems. Governments have killed more people than anyone likes to admit.

Don't believe a handgun is useful against a modern army? Go look at the "Liberator" from WWII. It was a small, single-shot gun made from stamped metal. Not much more than a "zip-gun." Yet, the Liberator was a stepping stone for the French Resistance to use to obtain more powerful weapons from the Germans.

A gun's greatest value lies not in its use, but in its threat. A government that has as much power as the United States almost *demands* that the people be well-armed.

Nazi Germany used gun-control laws to disarm the Jewish populace. That, in turn, made Kristallnacht possible. Look at Israel today. They have an understanding of the need for the people to be armed in order to protect themselves. Likewise, the "ethnic cleansing" of ethnic Armenians from Turkey was preceded by gun-control and confiscation. Idi Amin disarmed his populace before embarking upon his genocidal romp through Uganda. Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge disarmed, then killed, millions of people. Each time it happened, the people were told "it's for safety, to prevent criminals from going on rampages!"

Gun-control in the United States has an equally racist history. The original gun-control laws were designed to disarm blacks, Hispanics and other "undersirable" minorities. It is the purpose behind outlawing "Saturday Night Specials." An inexpensive handgun that can be used to protect oneself is important to a poor person. A rich white person can afford a more expensive weapon.

Likewise, notice that (at least in the United States) most of the "celebrities" that tout gun-control are constantly surrounded by gun-wielding bodyguards.

Martial arts? Please. Don't make me laugh. What do you think most criminals study while they're going to Penitentiary U.? Besides, a black belt won't protect you from a 9mm slug.

Even in Australia and the UK, those supposed "havens of gun control" have a higher gun-related crime rate than the US.

Every time I hear a gun-control zealot talking, all they come out with is "feelings," poorly thought-out logic and misinterpreted statistics. They set a goal of "no guns" then head towards it without bothering to seriously consider the side-effects. Instead of setting a goal of "less gun-related crime" or "less murders" or "less violence," which would, if based upon feedback from reality, point out their folly, they envision a Utopia without guns and ignore what happens along the way. They skip the validation part of their theories. They never compare the results after their pet legislation is enacted.

Columbine happened despite *MANY* laws being broken. Yet Columbine and other school atrocities occur more often now, than they did in the past, when children were more educated about guns. There was a time when kids took guns to school on a daily basis because they were going to go target practice after school or hunting or some other legitimate reason. They were taught at an early age that guns were a dangerous tool, to be treated with respect. Now, by forbidding children from coming into contact with guns, we have made them an object of great desire. They are "forbidden fruit" to kids. Forbidden fruit, of course, is often seen as the sweetest kind.

"Guns only purpose is to kill!"

Now, that is a particularly imbecilic sort of rant, because it makes a claim that, supposedly, can never be denied. However, it is a simplistic statement for a complex issue. You see, a gun can (and does) have many purposes. It can protect. (Doesn't always have to kill to do so.) It can feed. (Yes, it has to kill to feed, but the ultimate purpose is not the kill, but the food.) It can sharpen the senses. It can provide a friendly non-violent means of competition. (I've yet to hear of one single shooting match that devolved into a massacre. If you know of one, please let me know. Cite references so I can verify your claim.) It can defend freedom, the helpless, the aged, the feeble and the young. It can deter the opressor. Ultimately, it can guarantee you the right to speak your mind.

"It is the soldier, not the reporter who has given us the freedom of the press. It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us the freedom of speech. It is the soldier, not the campus organizer, who gives us the freedom to demonstrate. It is the soldier who salutes the flag, who serves beneath the flag, and whose coffin is draped by the flag, who allows the protester to burn the flag." ~Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Sergeant, USMC

The original Founders envisioned an America where every able adult male was a part of the "militia" which would defend the nation. Today, we may expand the definition to include every able adult female, as well, but the concept remains the same. You cannot have freedom of speech without the right to keep and bear arms. If the right to keep and bear arms goes away, then governments will conspire to take away freedom of speech. I watch with great interest what the results will be in Australia and the UK as the government becomes bolder and bolder in its march towards control over your every thought, word and deed.

http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/BluePete/Guns.htm http://www.pierrelemieux.org/greenwood-citizen.html http://www.1stoppapers.com/papers/apa.htm http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20020516.shtml http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/fortunes/rkba.html

Gun selling went up here, and crime went down.

Since 09/11/01, I have felt conflicted and have found myself wanting to purchase a gun and learn to use it. That desire has only *increased* since passage of the USA Patriot Act and now the Homeland Security Bill of 2002. (These are difficult and unexpected feelings for someone who strives towards the ideals of Pacificism.) Unfortunately, most of my fear seems not to be tweaked by looking outside the US. :/

Of course, it is obvious to mention Michael Moore's film, "Bowling For Columbine," in this thread. It is a film that captures the paradoxes of the US's relationship to violence, power, poverty, racism [and guns/weapons]. People would have benefitted from seeing this movie just after it's showing at Telluride [08/02], but Regal films and others blocked it's release. Finally realeased in "selected theatres" around mid-October, it still is showing only in large metropolitan areas (while those of us "in the sticks" get "Jackass" and "I Spy" and the like). IOW, it was effectively surpressed until AFTER the November national elections. (Moses held an NRA rally in my home state between the release of this film and the elections. The state actively promotes recreational hunting and was a hotbed of militia oriented BBSs.)

People on *any* side of this discussion (or not even on either) should make an effort to see this film. It would enhance the dialog.


Further information can be found at:
http://www.michaelmoore.com


Great flash intro here. Must see. All the comparative statistics one could ever need. ;> The official BFC site:

http://www.bowlingforcolumbine.com

[BTW, there is a RealPlayer trailer at Fandango - since they don't yet have that option at the official site.]


There are many wonderful interviews with MM about it too:

The "Press Conference" at the Cannes Film Festival site [May, 2002]. This film was the first documentary genre in over 48 years to be invited to Cannes and won a special jury award. This clip expresses quite a detail about the current climate in the US.

http://www.festival-cannes.org/films/fiche_film.php?langue=6002&partie =video&id_film=3137379&cmedia=4371


Amy Goodman's [one hour] interview on WBAI (10/18/02 - it's the second section):
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20021018.html


Please see this movie.

(No. My conflict about wanting to learn to handle a gun has not vanished.)

[This message has been edited by ksandre (edited 11-24-2002).]

[This message has been edited by ksandre (edited 11-24-2002).]

quote:

---

Originally posted by kingenrage:
more gunz \ more murders.

---

It's not the guns that kill, it's the derange minds of psychotic ppl who think they're GOD and can't handle the fact that they're weak, trying to satisfy their hunger for power by killing other ppl...

if they ban guns...it wont make a lick of a differnce...they ban drugs...like marijauana....lsd...heroin....and countless others......but u can still get a phone....dial one number , and have those items within minutes. banning wont do anything.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hurley44:
if they ban guns...it wont make a lick of a differnce...they ban drugs...like marijauana....lsd. (etc. etc. anal drivel)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir_Auron:
It's not the guns that kill, it's the derange minds of psychotic ppl who think they're GOD and can't handle the fact that they're weak, trying to satisfy their hunger for power by killing other ppl

---

I'm fucking sick of lame weakling arugments like this. If you outlaw (or at least severly restrict access to) weapons that are currently readily available to the average American, and less and less people have guns, then there will be no guns there for:

-people who get overcome with rage and decide it would be a good idea to shoot their boss/neighbour/sibling/etc.
-little kiddies to find their dad's gun and shoot themselves in the face
-disgruntled workers/school kids/parents etc. to go on a shooting rampage
-psychos who decide to kill stuff

etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

My point is if you get rid of guns, then there will be less accidents, less unexpected shootings, less people dying, less school shootings, fewer criminals would have easy access to guns. Look at countries (like America) where guns are readily available to anyone who wants one, and countries (like every other western country) where they aren't. The countries without the 'right to bear arms' don't have school shootings, don't have psychos with sniper rifles wandering around their capital cities, don't have disgruntled postal workers shooting everyone they work for. On the odd occassion that one of these tradgedies do occur, the government doesn't get high on right-wing patriotism and cry about their forefathers, they DO SOMETHING to protect their people and introduce measures to restrict access to guns. For example, in Australia a while ago (I can't remember how many years) a schizophrenic pothead got hold of some sort of semiautomatic weapon and shot lots of people in what became known as the Port Arther Massacre. The federal government of the time did the sensible thing and restricted such weaponry. More recently, a student at a university got hold of a handgun and shot some people. Again, the government did the sensible thing and is moving to restrict handguns so that more people don't get killed by people with guns. The argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is fucking stupid and weak. GUNS KILL PEOPLE. Do you see chunks of metal hurtling out of PEOPLE into other people? NO! The chunks of metal (aka bullets) come out of GUNS. GUNS KILL PEOPLE.

why does the NRA have to exist, guns have never been banned, and the way the country is running, I don't think they ever will be.

the NRA can suck my balls anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir_Auron:
It's not the guns that kill, it's the derange minds of psychotic ppl who think they're GOD and can't handle the fact that they're weak, trying to satisfy their hunger for power by killing other ppl...

---

Too right.
When I was little I loved guns, my parents thought it would be good to teach me a lesson in what guns were for, the only thing they were designed to do. My father took me out to a field and showed me what guns do to gophers(my favo animal at the time). After the shock wore off, he told me the only thing sensible i remember from him "Guns don't kill people on their own. You can leave a gun in a drawer for 100 years and as long as noone touches it, it will never harm anyone. You have to pick it up in order for it to hurt and kill someone. It is a tool and nothing else."
To keep the killings down, you have to educate ppl first.
My family seems to always be in one militia or another. My main family ran the Montana Militia and the other part of my family is in the Texas Militia, so i came from a violent line of ppl but that doesn't mean I am going to go off my rocker, because I was educated from a small age about what happens when you pick a tool up and decide to use it. It is the PERSON not the gun that kills. Getting rid of a tool doesn't mean the "icky" problem will go away.
I have been in a situation where pulling out a gun is the only reason I am alive. A shotgun is scarier than a .22 handgun. I live near a crackhead neighborhood and everyonce in awhile they manage to wander into our neighborhood, even though i have a six foot fence and two dobermans, sometimes they manage to get the bright idea to wander into my yard and try to get into my house. After the shotgun incident, I haven't had any problems.
And as for would I have shot them?
Yes, I have my ten year old son to protect.

its simple, ban guns and it makes them illegal. doesnt mean that people wont have them. all it means is that they r illegal. this suggests that law abiding citizens wont be able 2 obtain them, yet criminals still will. crime will increase initally and over a period of many years it will start 2 dissipate. thats exactly whats been happening in all of the countries that have banned guns. its a long term "solution" 2 the reduction of gun related crime. in concealed carry states, the crime levels have dropped, and more in some than in others. 4 some its been a fairly significant drop, while in others its barely noticeable.
personally im all 4 gun control (within reason). yes, gun should be kept out of the reach of children. yes, guns should be kept locked up when not in use or carry. but the freedom 2 own a gun is just that, a freedom. 2 ban guns is 2 take away that freedom. guns r mere tools in the users posession. they user decides 2 shoot somebody, not the gun, and if its not guns, then itll just be something else, like knives, incindiaries, and improvised weapons. u can get gun powder and things similar 2 it from common products, or u can easily make ur own. u can make a simple improvised shotgun from bbs/ball bearings, homemade black powder, a steel pipe and cap, etc. and the original purpose of the 2nd amendment was 2 allow states 2 maintain millitias 2 protect the individual rights of the state. the common view now that the 2nd amendment was created 2 allow citizens 2 own guns is merely a loose interpretation of the constitution. not saying that its wrong, cuz i dont believe that either side of it is wrong. all im saying is that its a loose interpretation. im pointing this out so that u can see this as many (not all) politicians do. some olympic competitors cant even target practice 4 their event in their own country, c'mon now, thats just sad. 4 the most part, its a matter of opinion. there is logic behind both sides, and the arguements really havent changed much over the years. either way, unless a decision is made 2 amend the consitution, making a clear and unmistakeable statement asserting guns as either being legal or illegal, bickering will continue 4 many years 2 come.

Guns, we need guns. Examples where u need guns. Burgaler breaks in, defending urself in a bad neghborhood. And the worst scenario of all (God forbid) the invasion of the US. How would we stop a surprise assualt? How could we form resistance w/o them? hmm u stupid hockey playing canadian?

From reading this thread i'm come to a couple simple conclusions.

More guns=less crimes and murders.

If you're deciding to rob a store with a gun, you better be damn well sure no one is carrying a gun in that store. If people carry more guns, people will be more afraid to rob a store, or commit other crimes.

As for the example about how that deranged man shot over 20 children. Look at this from a different point of view. These kind of murders are unavoidable. They happen everywhere. Sure banning guns would of had this man kill less people, but if we do ban guns, this type of murder could happen ten fold. With less people dead for each incident, but more people killed overall.

Besides laws only stop law abiding civilians. A person hell bent on using a gun to murder someone WILL get a gun. The law won't get in his way.

Basically I summed up some of the best points.

Perhaps guns should be kept legal, but the price of bullets jacked up. That way, the only people who got shot would be people who really deserved it. to quote chris rock 'oh shit! he must have done something wrong, he got 10 000 dollars worth of bullets in his ass.' In fact the whole idea is stolen from chris rock, but shut up.

All of you are getting Carpal Tunnel Syndrome for nothing. The Gungrabbing liberals are impervious to logic.

I didn't read many of these posts, im just posting my reply.

No they should not ban guns. It would make no difference. Guns are just the lazy man's way of killing people. People in jail make weapons all the time. Even when their cell is checked in lockdown and the prison thinks of every possibility. Even a piece of paper can be made into a weapon. Besides, those chinese weapons are almost as good. The REAL criminals would have guns. People nowadays can make shit guns with 1 shot for like 20 bucks.

You are definitely right! Never give up your guns. Fuck the ruling. The minute you idiots allow the socalled government to take your guns we'er all in trouble. they already have us hating eachother and killing eachother if we let them take our weapons we'll be helpless. With all of the suggestive thinking(brain programming) implemented by the jews media through television and air waves we need to wonder if they don't have our minds. Keep up the good fight every american regardless of ethnicity should have weapons not for the joy of killing but for the protection of their family and COUNTRY if the case arrises. AMERICANS FOR AMERICA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by DigitalReality:
Tell me this, IF a gunman went into your childrens school and murdered aload of kids, and your kids were killed, you WOULD want guns to be banned. get sence man there are too many loonys who have guns in America.

---

no i wouldnt. your statement is too close-minded. i would want the man who shot them dead. not guns

yes lets ban guns, lets go from being able to get someone away from you in one fell swoop to, say, taking out a knife and stabbing him, taking out the knife stabing again, all the while the other guy is still taking licks at you. or say we do get in the killing blow, and instead of killing him fairly quickly and relativl painlesssly lets stake him in the lung, all the while lets whats him wriith around in pain while he beg for death. OOH! OOH! lets start carrying around battle sword and start loping people's heads off in stead ha thats what we should do.

but in all seriousnees taking away our right to free speech can be worse than taking away guns. saying one wrong thing could get you killed, i mean saying "I don't like Bush" getting you killed? what if was a misinterpreted "I don't like bushes" 2 different things but the same reasult.

I prefer a free country where we kill each other than a tyranny where the government kills us instead

oh and another thing, since we are standing on the brink of a big war, if the magority of the citizens don't have guns what would happen if our army got overwheled and the fighting came here, lets let this settle in and i'll see you in the morning

'K! As of that I live in Norway, We don't have the right og the curse to bear arms, but Humans in itself are potencial weapons (fists, legs, etc.) As a skilled martial artist, I'm totaly able to kill upp to 8 people in 15 different ways in 20 sec's, using nothing but my own body (and somethimes other peoples bodys). Should one ban fists? Or legs?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Night Stalker 1978:
Support the good fight and prevent the government from taking our guns. Join the National Rifle Association and the Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) to help our first and last line of defense.

NRA-ILA
11250 Waples Mill Road
Fairfax, Virginia 22030

Or find them at: www.nralive.com

Please stop the INSANITY and save our rights and guns.

---

ban all guns! promote the use of ray guns!!! no blood, easily cleaned!! whopeee!

whatever anyone says..GUNS WILL, CAN, AND SHOULD NEVER BE TOTALLY BANNED!

guns can never be completely banned for the simple reason that the gov't will never be able to track every single piece of gun out there...for example, in my home country, the Philippines, a country so small that you can put it inside florida, has 200,000 registered firearms AND an estimated 2,000,000 loose firearms (unregistered) of course that number would be higher...how the fuck in god's green world would you be able to hunt down and confiscate every and each one of those? besides guns can be made at home given the proper tools and resources...

banning guns will just deprive people who see guns as a sporting tool their right to practice their hobby, now i can get a golf club whack someone with it in the head and kill a guy....would politicians (that spend probably half their lives in golf courses) ban golf because a golf club can kill someone? i dont think so...

like what was mentioned previously, if you have the intent to kill, you will do so with whatever means possible to get the desired ending...

yeah dats my worthless 2 cents for this one...

quote:

---

Originally posted by chickengod:
ban all guns! promote the use of ray guns!!! no blood, easily cleaned!! whopeee!

---

i think it was the french who had an experiment before with using a big speaker that plays a certain frequency which would emit a sonic boom that could crush walls and other kinds of barricades...apparently it could also liquefy internal organs...try getting somethin like that past the Geneva Convention...

There will be alot of people going about committing murder with much higher body count by the use of planes, autos, explosives, poisons etc. if guns were 2 be banned. There use in selectively killing targets, versus wiping out entire crowds, one will find to be a more prefered inevitability.

all you gun fucking freaks in america should just gofind your daddys handgun and use it as a dildo

By the sounds of your maturity level its probably a good thing you dont have one. I may just have to reconsider the right to bear arms. NOT!

"Guns don't kill people... The government does!"

-Dale, King of the Hill

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brent:
That's stupid. Guns should be banned.

---

guns are fucking lame, useless.and yea.i live in canada, but still guns are fucking retarded.