Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"
Login/Join to ParticipateStargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
Non-Https Image Link
[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.
Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.
Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section
Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.
If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.
As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.
The entire thread started like this:
Taken from: New York Times on August 7th
Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.
Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them “stand your ground” laws.
Opponents call them “shoot first” laws.
The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.
In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the law’s words, “has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force.” The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. “If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side,” Mr. LaPierre said. “Good people make good decisions. That’s why they’re good people. If you’re going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.”
The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.
In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passenger’s feet and then into his body, killing him.
Cliff Morningstar, the dead man’s uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. “He had a radio,” Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. “He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.”
Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. “However,” Ms. Haughwout said, “there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.”
“Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to ‘retreat to the wall’ before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force,” Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.
Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. “Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.
“I was in T-shirt and shorts,” Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allen’s door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.
“I was no threat,” Mr. Rosenbloom said. “I had no weapon.”
The men exchanged heated words. “He closed the door and then opened the door,” Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. “He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn’t even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.”
Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.
“I have a right,” Mr. Allen said, “to keep my house safe.”
Taken from sbcoalition
Originally Posted By: sbcoalition
In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorado’s Make My Day Law. “Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving,” the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.
Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hill’s home.
Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, “However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller.” She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jury’s decision. She also said, “At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.”
“Trust me,” wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, “this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.”
I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.
Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.
You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...
In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:
Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"
Pro-guns
National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Anti gun
Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network
(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)
Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts
Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."
Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents
USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America
EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
SILVER Member
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
9,831 posts
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all around the world, USA
Posted:
Maybe a few more times until you stop taking your own beliefs and imposing them on others
Maybe a few more times until you stop taking your own beliefs and imposing them on others
I was always scared with my mother's obsession with the good scissors. It made me wonder if there were evil scissors lurking in the house somewhere.
Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
**giggles**
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
What does the majority of Europeans being happy with having guns banned have to do with them respecting our government and our wishes? I'm really confused there.
Is it worth it to you to give up your personal rights and freedoms to save a few accidental deaths every year? Some may say yes, but I don't think so. Not when we could quell those accidents through education, and still retain our freedoms.
There is enough evidence to the contrary to at least question whether or not your system really does improve the state of being. Promoting responsible gun ownership is more effective than removing guns entirely. Look at the Swiss, they have a higher gun ownership per capita rate than the US, but less crime. They also have a much better education system when it comes to gun ownership. So is it the guns? No.
What is it? that's a much better question, removing guns is a temporary solution at best, you're treating a symptom, not the cause, and whether you believe so or not it is at the cost of our freedoms, and that is something any American should hold very dear and not give up without a fight.
I would point a heavy finger towards our media and it's influence on todays society. There is a glamorization of violence in this world, and it's not healthy. Can there be a healthy balance? I certainly believe so, however attacking the tool will never be as effective as attacking the cause.
Firetom:
I am quite happy with my government. Maybe not in its current state, with its current leadership, but by in large I would like to think we have a relatively good system. My government though, has no duty to protect me from another citizen. And I don't think they should, UNLESS that citizen has already demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to interact with the public, ie. a criminal. I have both a duty, and a responsibility to take care of myself, and ensure my own safety. Do you not agree with that? For the resources they are allotted, our police force does an amazing job. But they cannot be everywhere all at once, and calling 911 is going to do you no good against someone intent on killing you. The chances of me being in such a situation in my daily life is extremely small, but nonetheless it is there. As for your point B, the possibility for me to need to defend myself against my government goes up exponentially with the citizens disarmed. There is a tried, true, and sad historical basis for that.
Again, you're condemning a man, and removing their freedoms simply because they *may* do something bad in the future. That is not enough justification IMHO.
P.S. I've done archery for some time, and I do enjoy it. Just how much shooting have you done FireTom? Because I'm guessing it wasn't enough to get over the initial fear. Remember you are the one empowering a firearm with this "Dark energy" you speak of. It is simply an object, a tool, it cannot harm you on its own.
What does the majority of Europeans being happy with having guns banned have to do with them respecting our government and our wishes? I'm really confused there.
Is it worth it to you to give up your personal rights and freedoms to save a few accidental deaths every year? Some may say yes, but I don't think so. Not when we could quell those accidents through education, and still retain our freedoms.
There is enough evidence to the contrary to at least question whether or not your system really does improve the state of being. Promoting responsible gun ownership is more effective than removing guns entirely. Look at the Swiss, they have a higher gun ownership per capita rate than the US, but less crime. They also have a much better education system when it comes to gun ownership. So is it the guns? No.
What is it? that's a much better question, removing guns is a temporary solution at best, you're treating a symptom, not the cause, and whether you believe so or not it is at the cost of our freedoms, and that is something any American should hold very dear and not give up without a fight.
I would point a heavy finger towards our media and it's influence on todays society. There is a glamorization of violence in this world, and it's not healthy. Can there be a healthy balance? I certainly believe so, however attacking the tool will never be as effective as attacking the cause.
Firetom:
Written by:
See I find it a bit "wishwash"... on one side you seem to be quite happy with your government and the choices it provides you with, and on the other side you arm yourself, because you a) don't feel protected by your government from criminals and b) you feel the necessity to defend yourself against your government at some vast point in the fairytale future... To me this is contradictuous... however I just have to add that it seems as if there are enough cases of killing sprees (since this thread started) that just prove the point...
I am quite happy with my government. Maybe not in its current state, with its current leadership, but by in large I would like to think we have a relatively good system. My government though, has no duty to protect me from another citizen. And I don't think they should, UNLESS that citizen has already demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to interact with the public, ie. a criminal. I have both a duty, and a responsibility to take care of myself, and ensure my own safety. Do you not agree with that? For the resources they are allotted, our police force does an amazing job. But they cannot be everywhere all at once, and calling 911 is going to do you no good against someone intent on killing you. The chances of me being in such a situation in my daily life is extremely small, but nonetheless it is there. As for your point B, the possibility for me to need to defend myself against my government goes up exponentially with the citizens disarmed. There is a tried, true, and sad historical basis for that.
Written by:
A gun makes it MUCH easier to inflict harm on other ppl and that on a large scale. A law abiding citizen turning into a felon - with or without a gun in his hands...
Again, you're condemning a man, and removing their freedoms simply because they *may* do something bad in the future. That is not enough justification IMHO.
P.S. I've done archery for some time, and I do enjoy it. Just how much shooting have you done FireTom? Because I'm guessing it wasn't enough to get over the initial fear. Remember you are the one empowering a firearm with this "Dark energy" you speak of. It is simply an object, a tool, it cannot harm you on its own.
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored 
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I brought it up cos of your comment-
Which implied that UK-ers and Europeans are somehow missing out cos they can't get a gun as easy as US-ers and that.
Also that in doing so, their government are being 'unjust'.
Fact is we don't want guns cos most of us believe that part of the reason gun crime/gin deaths are so much lower than the US is because (or at least that it's a big factor) of our gun laws.
Additionally of course, the fact that states exist where gun ownership is limited and gun crime/gun deaths are at such a low level, increase our confidence in our gun laws.
(In the UK, the only real issue that arises now and again, is whether UK police should be routinely armed, there's never been any level of campaigning for public gun ownership).
That aside, the main answer to your question is that it's simply a reaction to your, IMO, lack of understanding of our cultures views on guns and I'm suggesting that you're making the same mistake you're accusing us of, by claiming that our gun laws are 'unjust'.
Written by: Lurch
What does the majority of Europeans being happy with having guns banned have to do with them respecting our government and our wishes? I'm really confused there.
I brought it up cos of your comment-
Written by: Lurch
*You* have LESS choice in the matter than I do, because your government has unjustly deemed you too dangerous to handle a weapon.
Which implied that UK-ers and Europeans are somehow missing out cos they can't get a gun as easy as US-ers and that.
Also that in doing so, their government are being 'unjust'.
Fact is we don't want guns cos most of us believe that part of the reason gun crime/gin deaths are so much lower than the US is because (or at least that it's a big factor) of our gun laws.
Additionally of course, the fact that states exist where gun ownership is limited and gun crime/gun deaths are at such a low level, increase our confidence in our gun laws.
(In the UK, the only real issue that arises now and again, is whether UK police should be routinely armed, there's never been any level of campaigning for public gun ownership).
That aside, the main answer to your question is that it's simply a reaction to your, IMO, lack of understanding of our cultures views on guns and I'm suggesting that you're making the same mistake you're accusing us of, by claiming that our gun laws are 'unjust'.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
We don't see it as giving up our freedom any more than the driver gives up their freedom to drink above a set amount when driving, or any more than we give up our freedom to buy and consume heroin.
To us, none of those things are giving up freedom, cos we (in the main) believe that laws and govt intervention on those matters leads to greater good.
And that is our view on public ownership of firearms.
While ever the majority of the population lack any desire to own a gun and while our gun crime/gun death rates are so very much lower than the US, it is likely to stay that way and we will not regard it as a loss of personal rights.
What evidence is that?
Written by: Lurch
Is it worth it to you to give up your personal rights and freedoms to save a few accidental deaths every year? Some may say yes, but I don't think so. Not when we could quell those accidents through education, and still retain our freedoms.
We don't see it as giving up our freedom any more than the driver gives up their freedom to drink above a set amount when driving, or any more than we give up our freedom to buy and consume heroin.
To us, none of those things are giving up freedom, cos we (in the main) believe that laws and govt intervention on those matters leads to greater good.
And that is our view on public ownership of firearms.
While ever the majority of the population lack any desire to own a gun and while our gun crime/gun death rates are so very much lower than the US, it is likely to stay that way and we will not regard it as a loss of personal rights.
Written by: Lurch
There is enough evidence to the contrary to at least question whether or not your system really does improve the state of being.
What evidence is that?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
newbie
7 posts
Location: Armidale, NSW, Australia
7 posts
Location: Armidale, NSW, Australia
Posted:
I think of a gun the same way i do a condom. Rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one.
I think of a gun the same way i do a condom. Rather have one and not need it than need it and not have one.
Point of Flash
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
faith, just so you know where I’m coming from, take a look at his article: A look inside America's gun culture, by an Australian.
“Gun control is one of the most fraught issues in the USA. It may be incomprehensible to Australians, but guns, like abortion, occupy a unique, high-profile position in US politics. The right to own a gun and defend oneself is central to the American identity and stems in part from the nation's frontier history.”
Lurch, you keep saying “I have free will, I'm not compelled to own a gun. It sounds less convincing, and more like a tautology, each time I hear it.
It’s a good point you make “What is it? that's a much better question, removing guns is a temporary solution at best, you're treating a symptom, not the cause, and whether you believe so or not it is at the cost of our freedoms, and that is something any American should hold very dear and not give up without a fight.”
While it seems like a temporary solution, the cause is people needing guns to feel secure, and the cost is freedom. Perhaps you should ask yourself where does this “not give up without a fight” come from? And who are you fighting, and why you are fighting?
“What does the majority of Europeans being happy with having guns banned have to do with them respecting our government and our wishes? I'm really confused there.”
I think the answer goes something like “the world would be a more peaceful and healthy place to live in if America stopped being so trigger happy, both at home and on the world stage. After all, the invasion of Iraq has really only increased the amount of terror in the world.
faith, just so you know where I’m coming from, take a look at his article: A look inside America's gun culture, by an Australian.
“Gun control is one of the most fraught issues in the USA. It may be incomprehensible to Australians, but guns, like abortion, occupy a unique, high-profile position in US politics. The right to own a gun and defend oneself is central to the American identity and stems in part from the nation's frontier history.”
Lurch, you keep saying “I have free will, I'm not compelled to own a gun. It sounds less convincing, and more like a tautology, each time I hear it.
It’s a good point you make “What is it? that's a much better question, removing guns is a temporary solution at best, you're treating a symptom, not the cause, and whether you believe so or not it is at the cost of our freedoms, and that is something any American should hold very dear and not give up without a fight.”
While it seems like a temporary solution, the cause is people needing guns to feel secure, and the cost is freedom. Perhaps you should ask yourself where does this “not give up without a fight” come from? And who are you fighting, and why you are fighting?
“What does the majority of Europeans being happy with having guns banned have to do with them respecting our government and our wishes? I'm really confused there.”
I think the answer goes something like “the world would be a more peaceful and healthy place to live in if America stopped being so trigger happy, both at home and on the world stage. After all, the invasion of Iraq has really only increased the amount of terror in the world.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
Tom: You speak of dark energies. That is simply the power you apply to it. IMO, bans are related to fear. Some fear is proper, but mostly it is from lack of education. By banning a gun, you give it the dark energy resulting from people not being familiar and seeing them used by criminals and evil purposes glamorized in movies.
The government can do nothing to stop a person until the crime is committed. They can make some crimes more difficult, but until the crime is committed and the criminal actually caught, what is the government supposed to do.
You are not seriously comparing drinking and driving, or the use of drugs to owning a gun, are you? the first two are always illegal. They have predictable outcomes and rarely are these outcomes good. People own guns and nothing bad happens. You do not endanger people merely by owning a gun. Most people are responsible with their weapon. There is no such thing as a responsible drunk driver or addict. Most gun owners will never use it but for target practice. If they do use it, it will be to protect themselves. (we are talking about regular citizens) Drunk driving and drugs really only lead down one path. Someone gets hurt no matter what.
Stone: First, the article is an Australian opinion. It only goes to show that foriegners have the single minded idea that we are cowboys who shoot at everything that moves. But think about the major spinners about the US, they are far from cowboys. Many people are more like them. But hell, we still have cowboys. It seems that those who cause the most problem are not the cowboys but the thugs.
And your quote only shows that we are not all pro-gun. That we do question the right and question how we can make this safer without taking away gunownership.
We have a right. We have free will. We wouldn't have to keep repeating it if you all would not keeping making us point it out. We are not sheep. It's not tautology if we have to repeat ourselves, because the simple points are evading you. If our repetition smacks of tautology, what does yours smack of?
For more repetition. We are fighting for our homes, for our safety, sometimes our lives. And it isn't always people. Animals, like bears and mountain lions, especially the latter, do attack humans. But we shall be unarmed so as not to hurt the pussy cat.
Again, Iraq is foreign policy. It was a governmental decision. These gun laws we are talking about are purely domestic.
Let's look at Britian's history. How many countries did it occupy? When did they give the last country it's right to rule itself. Previous world powers did the same thing. Is it right, no. Was it right then, no.
Or let's see how many countries are actually doing something about the genocides, the terrorism? Either other countries say that it isn't their problem or they go to the UN which is an outdated beaurocratic machine clogged with red tape and meaningless gestures.
Tom: You speak of dark energies. That is simply the power you apply to it. IMO, bans are related to fear. Some fear is proper, but mostly it is from lack of education. By banning a gun, you give it the dark energy resulting from people not being familiar and seeing them used by criminals and evil purposes glamorized in movies.
The government can do nothing to stop a person until the crime is committed. They can make some crimes more difficult, but until the crime is committed and the criminal actually caught, what is the government supposed to do.
You are not seriously comparing drinking and driving, or the use of drugs to owning a gun, are you? the first two are always illegal. They have predictable outcomes and rarely are these outcomes good. People own guns and nothing bad happens. You do not endanger people merely by owning a gun. Most people are responsible with their weapon. There is no such thing as a responsible drunk driver or addict. Most gun owners will never use it but for target practice. If they do use it, it will be to protect themselves. (we are talking about regular citizens) Drunk driving and drugs really only lead down one path. Someone gets hurt no matter what.
Stone: First, the article is an Australian opinion. It only goes to show that foriegners have the single minded idea that we are cowboys who shoot at everything that moves. But think about the major spinners about the US, they are far from cowboys. Many people are more like them. But hell, we still have cowboys. It seems that those who cause the most problem are not the cowboys but the thugs.
And your quote only shows that we are not all pro-gun. That we do question the right and question how we can make this safer without taking away gunownership.
We have a right. We have free will. We wouldn't have to keep repeating it if you all would not keeping making us point it out. We are not sheep. It's not tautology if we have to repeat ourselves, because the simple points are evading you. If our repetition smacks of tautology, what does yours smack of?
For more repetition. We are fighting for our homes, for our safety, sometimes our lives. And it isn't always people. Animals, like bears and mountain lions, especially the latter, do attack humans. But we shall be unarmed so as not to hurt the pussy cat.
Again, Iraq is foreign policy. It was a governmental decision. These gun laws we are talking about are purely domestic.
Let's look at Britian's history. How many countries did it occupy? When did they give the last country it's right to rule itself. Previous world powers did the same thing. Is it right, no. Was it right then, no.
Or let's see how many countries are actually doing something about the genocides, the terrorism? Either other countries say that it isn't their problem or they go to the UN which is an outdated beaurocratic machine clogged with red tape and meaningless gestures.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I mentioned drink driving, not as a comparison, but to try to explain to Lurch why we in the UK do not see gun laws as an attack on our freedoms-
What i'm saying is that just as we don't regard heroin restriction and the banning of driving over the limit as restrictions to our freedom, neither do we regard our slendid gun laws as restrictions to our freedom.
Written by: faithinfire
You are not seriously comparing drinking and driving, or the use of drugs to owning a gun, are you? the first two are always illegal.
I mentioned drink driving, not as a comparison, but to try to explain to Lurch why we in the UK do not see gun laws as an attack on our freedoms-
Written by: onewheeldave
We don't see it as giving up our freedom any more than the driver gives up their freedom to drink above a set amount when driving, or any more than we give up our freedom to buy and consume heroin.
To us, none of those things are giving up freedom, cos we (in the main) believe that laws and govt intervention on those matters leads to greater good.
What i'm saying is that just as we don't regard heroin restriction and the banning of driving over the limit as restrictions to our freedom, neither do we regard our slendid gun laws as restrictions to our freedom.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The legal limit of alcohol consumption is well-established and throughourly accepted.
However, back in the day when the laws were brought in, many considered the proposed restriction to be an unnecessarily infringement on civil rights and many drivers believed that it was possible to drink large amounts of alcohol and drive responsibly.
Indeed, an older relative of mine not only routinely drank over the limit and drove, but considered that he could do so responsibly. He continued to do so till almost the year 2000. There are many others like him.
Written by: faithinfire
There is no such thing as a responsible drunk driver or addict.
The legal limit of alcohol consumption is well-established and throughourly accepted.
However, back in the day when the laws were brought in, many considered the proposed restriction to be an unnecessarily infringement on civil rights and many drivers believed that it was possible to drink large amounts of alcohol and drive responsibly.
Indeed, an older relative of mine not only routinely drank over the limit and drove, but considered that he could do so responsibly. He continued to do so till almost the year 2000. There are many others like him.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
round here we take that as a serious offense...here it is a matter of time before you get caught. not if.
Other drivers call in drunks on the road. You can even get a reward if they get prosecuted. Many bars participate in designated driver programs and have shuttles to get people home.
Even so, most people I know have at least one DUI or OWI. The law obviously does not stop people from commiting this crime.
Alcohol and drugs impair you. Physically. A gun does not. Because of this, it is not really comprable IMO. Owning a gun does not put you or others at risk when handled properly. We have already agreed that some restriction apply and that those restriction are for the betterment of gun ownership. Guns can protect you. Alcohol cannot. Drunk driving and drugs really only have one outcome, unless you stop. Not so with guns.
The fact that you had family members that drove drunk and you and your didn't do anything makes me angry. If anything had happened, any one who knew should be considered a legal accomplice. (That being said, I don't really know that you didn't do anything, but that he drove like that for so long, I infer it-perhaps wrongly)
round here we take that as a serious offense...here it is a matter of time before you get caught. not if.
Other drivers call in drunks on the road. You can even get a reward if they get prosecuted. Many bars participate in designated driver programs and have shuttles to get people home.
Even so, most people I know have at least one DUI or OWI. The law obviously does not stop people from commiting this crime.
Alcohol and drugs impair you. Physically. A gun does not. Because of this, it is not really comprable IMO. Owning a gun does not put you or others at risk when handled properly. We have already agreed that some restriction apply and that those restriction are for the betterment of gun ownership. Guns can protect you. Alcohol cannot. Drunk driving and drugs really only have one outcome, unless you stop. Not so with guns.
The fact that you had family members that drove drunk and you and your didn't do anything makes me angry. If anything had happened, any one who knew should be considered a legal accomplice. (That being said, I don't really know that you didn't do anything, but that he drove like that for so long, I infer it-perhaps wrongly)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
You have every right to believe that, I'm not saying otherwise. Your public does not want guns. Good for them, if they want to give up that right in order to have a "more peaceful" society in their eyes, then go for it. I guess I'm just a bit of a realist.
You're right that I don't have a complete understanding to your gun culture, you're more than welcome to live in your country and make whatever laws you see fit, but don't yell at us and call us ignorant because we don't agree with you. Regardless, if your exact laws were imposed in the US, they would be looked as being 'unjust'.
But does it really? Is it truely better to have an unarmed populace and a heavily armed (in comparison) government?
To Machiavelli the economic independence of the citizen and his ability and willingness to become a warrior were the most dependable protections against corruption. From these basic ideas he fashioned a sociology of liberty dependent upon the place of arms in society: Political conditions must allow every citizen to have arms; moral conditions must encourage all citizens to defend their republic with enthusiasm; and economic conditions must guarantee the citizen-soldier a livelihood upon leaving the army. The interrelation of arms and civic virtue was central to Machiavelli's thought and it fostered a belief in the inseparable nature of arms and a full array of civil rights. To prevent some citizens from possessing arms while allowing others this privilege constituted both a grievous breach of personal freedom and the erosion of a vital safeguard against tyranny.
There is a saying that the Sword and the Soverignty always march hand in hand.
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. - James Burgh
Your culture apparently makes it acceptable to rely on the government for your protection yes? Mine does not, this is partially where the 'sheep, sheepdog, and wolf' comparison comes into play. The majority of people are sheep, they are scared of the sheepdog, because he looks suspiciously like a wolf. But hide behind the sheepdog, and need his protection when the true wolves are near.
It seems to me that instead of encourageing "sheepdog" behaviour in your culture, you've apparently encouraged the general population to become sheep. That seems more like a step towards a totalitarian state under the guise of it being 'for the greater good' than anything else.
You're looking at this backwards. The gun is a tool, it is an object. My right to own this object is the freedom you're asking me to give up. The personal security that this tool gives me is secondary in this case. If it would keep people from being offended and make a select few happier, why not impose strict censorship on all media outlets? I have a right to say what I want in this country, without having to justify myself, why then can I not own what I want? I can waste my money if I want, it's *my* money afterall.
Somehow I knew you'de spin it to Iraq
I hope you realize that a *lot* of positive has come from this war, it was mishandled, and screwed up from the start, but that doesn't mean that removal of Saddam was a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that there hasn't been improvement. Don't go only by what you see on the news, most of Iraq is fairly stable and peaceful. You may accuse us of being trigger happy, but we do far more good than harm. Would you prefer us to do nothing at all? We could cut all foreign aid. Pull out of Iraq, and just focus on fixing ourselves for once. But somehow I don't think that would make the world a better place at all do you?
Written by:
Fact is we don't want guns cos most of us believe that part of the reason gun crime/gin deaths are so much lower than the US is because (or at least that it's a big factor) of our gun laws.
You have every right to believe that, I'm not saying otherwise. Your public does not want guns. Good for them, if they want to give up that right in order to have a "more peaceful" society in their eyes, then go for it. I guess I'm just a bit of a realist.
You're right that I don't have a complete understanding to your gun culture, you're more than welcome to live in your country and make whatever laws you see fit, but don't yell at us and call us ignorant because we don't agree with you. Regardless, if your exact laws were imposed in the US, they would be looked as being 'unjust'.
Written by:
To us, none of those things are giving up freedom, cos we (in the main) believe that laws and govt intervention on those matters leads to greater good.
But does it really? Is it truely better to have an unarmed populace and a heavily armed (in comparison) government?
To Machiavelli the economic independence of the citizen and his ability and willingness to become a warrior were the most dependable protections against corruption. From these basic ideas he fashioned a sociology of liberty dependent upon the place of arms in society: Political conditions must allow every citizen to have arms; moral conditions must encourage all citizens to defend their republic with enthusiasm; and economic conditions must guarantee the citizen-soldier a livelihood upon leaving the army. The interrelation of arms and civic virtue was central to Machiavelli's thought and it fostered a belief in the inseparable nature of arms and a full array of civil rights. To prevent some citizens from possessing arms while allowing others this privilege constituted both a grievous breach of personal freedom and the erosion of a vital safeguard against tyranny.
There is a saying that the Sword and the Soverignty always march hand in hand.
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. - James Burgh
Your culture apparently makes it acceptable to rely on the government for your protection yes? Mine does not, this is partially where the 'sheep, sheepdog, and wolf' comparison comes into play. The majority of people are sheep, they are scared of the sheepdog, because he looks suspiciously like a wolf. But hide behind the sheepdog, and need his protection when the true wolves are near.
It seems to me that instead of encourageing "sheepdog" behaviour in your culture, you've apparently encouraged the general population to become sheep. That seems more like a step towards a totalitarian state under the guise of it being 'for the greater good' than anything else.
Written by:
While it seems like a temporary solution, the cause is people needing guns to feel secure, and the cost is freedom. Perhaps you should ask yourself where does this “not give up without a fight” come from? And who are you fighting, and why you are fighting?
You're looking at this backwards. The gun is a tool, it is an object. My right to own this object is the freedom you're asking me to give up. The personal security that this tool gives me is secondary in this case. If it would keep people from being offended and make a select few happier, why not impose strict censorship on all media outlets? I have a right to say what I want in this country, without having to justify myself, why then can I not own what I want? I can waste my money if I want, it's *my* money afterall.
Written by:
I think the answer goes something like “the world would be a more peaceful and healthy place to live in if America stopped being so trigger happy, both at home and on the world stage. After all, the invasion of Iraq has really only increased the amount of terror in the world.
Somehow I knew you'de spin it to Iraq
I hope you realize that a *lot* of positive has come from this war, it was mishandled, and screwed up from the start, but that doesn't mean that removal of Saddam was a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that there hasn't been improvement. Don't go only by what you see on the news, most of Iraq is fairly stable and peaceful. You may accuse us of being trigger happy, but we do far more good than harm. Would you prefer us to do nothing at all? We could cut all foreign aid. Pull out of Iraq, and just focus on fixing ourselves for once. But somehow I don't think that would make the world a better place at all do you?
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
*sarcasm* but lurch you have to remember that the media says that we are just monsters occupying the country and making things worse.
all kidding aside, most gun owners are responsible. most you would never know own a gun. it is the few that cause the problem. some don't even think of their guns as form of protection, but think of it as something to do on weekends.
This is the difference. We will not let guns instill fear in us. Self-defense classes in urban areas teach how to look for and use an oppurtinity to disarm someone with a weapon.
The government is not walking down the street with me. The government is not going to protect me from the mugger with a gun (or knife or weapon of your choice). But the government will prosecute mugger after the police come and see I have him/her pinned.
The government is not walking down the hiking path with me. The government is not going to protect me from the mountain lion stalking me. The government will make sure that the lion will not harm anyone else (hopefully).
The government cannot protect you from a home invasion, a pissed off dealer, a stalker, a rapist, or whatever else. It sounds like paranoia but look at the Milwaukee news one day. I don't need to be paranoid. I need to be realistic
*sarcasm* but lurch you have to remember that the media says that we are just monsters occupying the country and making things worse.
all kidding aside, most gun owners are responsible. most you would never know own a gun. it is the few that cause the problem. some don't even think of their guns as form of protection, but think of it as something to do on weekends.
This is the difference. We will not let guns instill fear in us. Self-defense classes in urban areas teach how to look for and use an oppurtinity to disarm someone with a weapon.
The government is not walking down the street with me. The government is not going to protect me from the mugger with a gun (or knife or weapon of your choice). But the government will prosecute mugger after the police come and see I have him/her pinned.
The government is not walking down the hiking path with me. The government is not going to protect me from the mountain lion stalking me. The government will make sure that the lion will not harm anyone else (hopefully).
The government cannot protect you from a home invasion, a pissed off dealer, a stalker, a rapist, or whatever else. It sounds like paranoia but look at the Milwaukee news one day. I don't need to be paranoid. I need to be realistic
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
I've not (yelled at you). Others may have, but I have not.
-That's not what you said though- your quote was-
Injust as you may regard it if your govt made that judgement, there is no injustice whatsoever in ours doing it over here, so it's innacurrate for you to use the word 'unjust' in the context of our govts gun laws.
Our govt isn't heavily armed, certainly our police and other enforcement agencies, in comparison to the US's, are lightly armed.
We seem to have found that less guns can equate to less need for armed govt agents.
Written by: Lurch
You're right that I don't have a complete understanding to your gun culture, you're more than welcome to live in your country and make whatever laws you see fit, but don't yell at us........
I've not (yelled at you). Others may have, but I have not.
Written by: Lurch
Regardless, if your exact laws were imposed in the US, they would be looked as being 'unjust'.
-That's not what you said though- your quote was-
Written by:
*You* have LESS choice in the matter than I do, because your government has unjustly deemed you too dangerous to handle a weapon.
Injust as you may regard it if your govt made that judgement, there is no injustice whatsoever in ours doing it over here, so it's innacurrate for you to use the word 'unjust' in the context of our govts gun laws.
Written by:
But does it really? Is it truely better to have an unarmed populace and a heavily armed (in comparison) government?
Our govt isn't heavily armed, certainly our police and other enforcement agencies, in comparison to the US's, are lightly armed.
We seem to have found that less guns can equate to less need for armed govt agents.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
The fact that many 'kingdoms' exist where the populace aren't armed (eg the UK and most of Europe etc) and that those kindgoms are secure (certainly we have far less to worry about where shootings are concerned) would suggest that the quote is simply wrong.
I don't think we rely on the protection of our govt any more than the average US-er does.
In the UK we have (mainly unarmed) police and, in the US, you have police.
Presumably the US police do a similar job as the UK police and presumably they're just as busy?
If so, then no real difference, so, no- I don't thin we rely on our govt for protection more than the US-er does.
Written by: Lurch
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people....
The fact that many 'kingdoms' exist where the populace aren't armed (eg the UK and most of Europe etc) and that those kindgoms are secure (certainly we have far less to worry about where shootings are concerned) would suggest that the quote is simply wrong.
Written by:
Your culture apparently makes it acceptable to rely on the government for your protection yes? Mine does not, this is partially where the 'sheep, sheepdog.....
I don't think we rely on the protection of our govt any more than the average US-er does.
In the UK we have (mainly unarmed) police and, in the US, you have police.
Presumably the US police do a similar job as the UK police and presumably they're just as busy?
If so, then no real difference, so, no- I don't thin we rely on our govt for protection more than the US-er does.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
faith, my opinion is an Australian opinion. I don’t have any a problem with that. The UN is an outdated bureaucratic machine clogged with red tape and meaningless gestures
The question is how can we make it work better?
I agree most gun owners are responsible. Unfortunately, some people see guns as a solution to their problems. You said copycat shootings would come up, and they have in Australia. No deaths, just email scares. It was on the news tonight: Student denies massacre plot
Lurch, I don’t know where you get you news from, but there is a civil war going on in Iraq. And yes, I would prefer America did nothing as far a foreign policy is concerned
I don’t see how you could make a gun the object of your freedom, when owing a gun seems more like a reaction to fear.
For sure, I’m asking you to give up something, but it’s only after you give up your right to own something, that you can choose and have access to free will.
faith, my opinion is an Australian opinion. I don’t have any a problem with that. The UN is an outdated bureaucratic machine clogged with red tape and meaningless gestures
The question is how can we make it work better? I agree most gun owners are responsible. Unfortunately, some people see guns as a solution to their problems. You said copycat shootings would come up, and they have in Australia. No deaths, just email scares. It was on the news tonight: Student denies massacre plot
Lurch, I don’t know where you get you news from, but there is a civil war going on in Iraq. And yes, I would prefer America did nothing as far a foreign policy is concerned
I don’t see how you could make a gun the object of your freedom, when owing a gun seems more like a reaction to fear.
For sure, I’m asking you to give up something, but it’s only after you give up your right to own something, that you can choose and have access to free will.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
No. I think most of us feel that, on balance, the consequences have been primarily negative.
No one here ever supported Saddam. Many Iraqis suffered horribly under that regime- now many are suffering under the new regime and will continue to do so for a long time.
We will make judgements based on news reports from various sources, as that is the only way to come to conclusions- what method do you use to work out what's going on over there?
No it's not- it's a very brutal and dangerous place.
We disagree that US intervention in that instance has done more harm than good.
Yes!- at least at the time. It's too late now to do nothing but maybe you'll remember our answer to your question the next time you have an opportunity to invade something- we would actually prefer you to do nothing.
Actually, yes, I think the US should now focus it's efforts on fixing itself and, yes, I think that that is the best thing the US could do to make the world a better place.
Terrorism is going to be around for the forseeable future and, there's going to be a lot more of it, fueled by the horrors in the middle east which, rightly or wrongly, are perceived by many of the communities there, as being perpetuated by the US/other western military powers.
Fighting it using the current methods will, IMO, create more terror than simply not fighting it using those methods.
And perhaps here is the heart of the gun issue as well.
Cos, if the US pro-gunners here are being honest, I think they'd have to admit that, if it was shown that public gun ownership allowed defense against aggressors in, say, 5 instances, yet it could be shown that a consequnce of that gun ownership led directly to, say, 50 gun incidents (shooting of the public) that would otherwise not have occured- the US pro-gunners would say, despite the overall increase in shootings, that the gun ownership is justifed.
Whereas Europeans would not be at all concerned about 'freedom to bear arms', 'frontier philosohies' etc- they'd simpy take a pragmatic view that the option that, overall, leads to less shootings of non-criminals, is the option to take.
Which is what we've done and, in doing so, we seem to have ended up with a lot less gun crimes than the US.
same with terror- if doing nothing leads to 'x' terror incidents and, 'fighting terror' leads to 100x terror incidents; then we'll be inclined to not fight terror in that way, on the grounds that it makes things worse.
having said that, as far as I'm concerned- U.S. pro-gunners can do what they want- keep your guns.
I think it would be good though if you can just accept that, over here, we do really well without guns- please don't impose your 'sheep' accusations on us, or suggest that our govts gun laws are unjust (to us).
Written by: lurch
Written by:
I think the answer goes something like “the world would be a more peaceful and healthy place to live in if America stopped being so trigger happy, both at home and on the world stage. After all, the invasion of Iraq has really only increased the amount of terror in the world.
Somehow I knew you'de spin it to Iraq
I hope you realize that a *lot* of positive has come from this war,
No. I think most of us feel that, on balance, the consequences have been primarily negative.
Written by:
it was mishandled, and screwed up from the start, but that doesn't mean that removal of Saddam was a bad thing, and it doesn't mean that there hasn't been improvement.
No one here ever supported Saddam. Many Iraqis suffered horribly under that regime- now many are suffering under the new regime and will continue to do so for a long time.
Written by:
Don't go only by what you see on the news,
We will make judgements based on news reports from various sources, as that is the only way to come to conclusions- what method do you use to work out what's going on over there?
Written by:
most of Iraq is fairly stable and peaceful.
No it's not- it's a very brutal and dangerous place.
Written by:
You may accuse us of being trigger happy, but we do far more good than harm.
We disagree that US intervention in that instance has done more harm than good.
Written by:
Would you prefer us to do nothing at all?
Yes!- at least at the time. It's too late now to do nothing but maybe you'll remember our answer to your question the next time you have an opportunity to invade something- we would actually prefer you to do nothing.
Written by:
and just focus on fixing ourselves for once. But somehow I don't think that would make the world a better place at all do you?
Actually, yes, I think the US should now focus it's efforts on fixing itself and, yes, I think that that is the best thing the US could do to make the world a better place.
Terrorism is going to be around for the forseeable future and, there's going to be a lot more of it, fueled by the horrors in the middle east which, rightly or wrongly, are perceived by many of the communities there, as being perpetuated by the US/other western military powers.
Fighting it using the current methods will, IMO, create more terror than simply not fighting it using those methods.
And perhaps here is the heart of the gun issue as well.
Cos, if the US pro-gunners here are being honest, I think they'd have to admit that, if it was shown that public gun ownership allowed defense against aggressors in, say, 5 instances, yet it could be shown that a consequnce of that gun ownership led directly to, say, 50 gun incidents (shooting of the public) that would otherwise not have occured- the US pro-gunners would say, despite the overall increase in shootings, that the gun ownership is justifed.
Whereas Europeans would not be at all concerned about 'freedom to bear arms', 'frontier philosohies' etc- they'd simpy take a pragmatic view that the option that, overall, leads to less shootings of non-criminals, is the option to take.
Which is what we've done and, in doing so, we seem to have ended up with a lot less gun crimes than the US.
same with terror- if doing nothing leads to 'x' terror incidents and, 'fighting terror' leads to 100x terror incidents; then we'll be inclined to not fight terror in that way, on the grounds that it makes things worse.
having said that, as far as I'm concerned- U.S. pro-gunners can do what they want- keep your guns.
I think it would be good though if you can just accept that, over here, we do really well without guns- please don't impose your 'sheep' accusations on us, or suggest that our govts gun laws are unjust (to us).
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
Stone: on opinions, fair enough but please note what I said about global opinion on USers and temper your opinion with that
The UN is a dinosaur and should go the same way as the League of Nations. Truth is that it won't because certain countries in powerful positions, see it working for them and they can make their little donations and feel better about themselves. They can make decrees against genocides but do little in form of real action. How many more people must be slaughtered?
Wait! There have been threats of copycats in Australia. Gee, those gun laws are really making people feel safe. (Thankfully, it's just been email threats and I hope nothing like our shootings happen there again )
Why are we still talking about foreign policy? This is a domestic issue. Honestly, it isn't anyone else's business. But fine, here we go. If we pulled out now, then all the countries sitting on their butts at the UN can complain about how we didn't finish the job. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. So we should stay and continue on improving infrastructures, sanitation, and education.
And you keep saying gun ownership is out of fear. We have to keep telling you that it is not. We are simply prepared. It has nothing to do with fear. It is assessing your situation, evaluating risks, and learning and doing what needs to be done to eliminate or minimize risk.
OWD: The fact that you would say that my friends over there are not doing any good while risking their lives for the Iraqis and trying to help them, bothers me. Talk to soldiers and see if they think that what they are doing is mostly negative. News has jumped on the bad, because that is what sells, the liberal majority of the world has decided everything about this war is evil including the soldiers. So your news is basically one sided.
, Rosie O'Donnell called the soldiers terrorists.
In truth, much of Iraq is peaceful. The stories you hear about are primarily from hot spots.
Being honest, I would say that people owning guns actually prevents crimes in conception. I've heard people talk about how they won't bother this person because they have a gun. Criminals look for victims. They look for easy targets. CCWs and stores with guns make people/criminals think twice. A gun does not need to be fired to prevent a crime. Sometimes, it doesn't even need to be shown.
Stone: on opinions, fair enough but please note what I said about global opinion on USers and temper your opinion with that
The UN is a dinosaur and should go the same way as the League of Nations. Truth is that it won't because certain countries in powerful positions, see it working for them and they can make their little donations and feel better about themselves. They can make decrees against genocides but do little in form of real action. How many more people must be slaughtered?
Wait! There have been threats of copycats in Australia. Gee, those gun laws are really making people feel safe. (Thankfully, it's just been email threats and I hope nothing like our shootings happen there again
)Why are we still talking about foreign policy? This is a domestic issue. Honestly, it isn't anyone else's business. But fine, here we go. If we pulled out now, then all the countries sitting on their butts at the UN can complain about how we didn't finish the job. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. So we should stay and continue on improving infrastructures, sanitation, and education.
And you keep saying gun ownership is out of fear. We have to keep telling you that it is not. We are simply prepared. It has nothing to do with fear. It is assessing your situation, evaluating risks, and learning and doing what needs to be done to eliminate or minimize risk.
OWD: The fact that you would say that my friends over there are not doing any good while risking their lives for the Iraqis and trying to help them, bothers me. Talk to soldiers and see if they think that what they are doing is mostly negative. News has jumped on the bad, because that is what sells, the liberal majority of the world has decided everything about this war is evil including the soldiers. So your news is basically one sided.
, Rosie O'Donnell called the soldiers terrorists.In truth, much of Iraq is peaceful. The stories you hear about are primarily from hot spots.
Being honest, I would say that people owning guns actually prevents crimes in conception. I've heard people talk about how they won't bother this person because they have a gun. Criminals look for victims. They look for easy targets. CCWs and stores with guns make people/criminals think twice. A gun does not need to be fired to prevent a crime. Sometimes, it doesn't even need to be shown.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Im not knocking the soldiers- I feel for fit, vital, healthly young men who are coming back with serious head injuries and a lifetime of extreme difficulties, or coming back missing limbs, or dead.
It's a tragedy for their parents/families.
UK soldiers are coming back that way too.
My dad was military- I'm not knocking the soldiers.
Nevertheless, I maintain that the war was a mistake and that, overall, it's done more harm than good for the US, the Iraqis and the world in general.
That's not the fault of the soldiers following orders- in scenarios where those orders are wrong, the soldiers are victims too.
Many soldiers are victims in thise too- a large proportion are/were ghetto boys looking for one of the few ways out of their situation.
You'll also be aware that there's a substantial number of returning soldiers, many injured, who themselves, now oppose the war.
Do you want to tackle the question of why, if owning guns cuts crimes, that in the UK and Europe, gun crimes and shootings are so much lower than in the U.S.
Cos, if someone doesn't tackle that question, it really does cast a huge shadow on any attempt to show the benefits of guns.
Put yourself in our place, we're being told by U.S, pro-gunners that public gun ownership cuts gun crimes and is even essential to maintain order- yet, all the time we're aware of the apparently contradictory fact that we ourselves live in a culture where guns are heavily restricted or banned, yet our gun crime stats are far lower than yours and our societies are as ordered as yours.
?
Written by: faithinfire
OWD: The fact that you would say that my friends over there are not doing any good while risking their lives for the Iraqis and trying to help them, bothers me. Talk to soldiers and see if they think that what they are doing is mostly negative. News has jumped on the bad, because that is what sells, the liberal majority of the world has decided everything about this war is evil including the soldiers. So your news is basically one sided.
Im not knocking the soldiers- I feel for fit, vital, healthly young men who are coming back with serious head injuries and a lifetime of extreme difficulties, or coming back missing limbs, or dead.
It's a tragedy for their parents/families.
UK soldiers are coming back that way too.
My dad was military- I'm not knocking the soldiers.
Nevertheless, I maintain that the war was a mistake and that, overall, it's done more harm than good for the US, the Iraqis and the world in general.
That's not the fault of the soldiers following orders- in scenarios where those orders are wrong, the soldiers are victims too.
Many soldiers are victims in thise too- a large proportion are/were ghetto boys looking for one of the few ways out of their situation.
You'll also be aware that there's a substantial number of returning soldiers, many injured, who themselves, now oppose the war.
Written by: faithinfire
Being honest, I would say that people owning guns actually prevents crimes in conception. I've heard people talk about how they won't bother this person because they have a gun. Criminals look for victims. They look for easy targets. CCWs and stores with guns make people/criminals think twice. A gun does not need to be fired to prevent a crime. Sometimes, it doesn't even need to be shown.
Do you want to tackle the question of why, if owning guns cuts crimes, that in the UK and Europe, gun crimes and shootings are so much lower than in the U.S.
Cos, if someone doesn't tackle that question, it really does cast a huge shadow on any attempt to show the benefits of guns.
Put yourself in our place, we're being told by U.S, pro-gunners that public gun ownership cuts gun crimes and is even essential to maintain order- yet, all the time we're aware of the apparently contradictory fact that we ourselves live in a culture where guns are heavily restricted or banned, yet our gun crime stats are far lower than yours and our societies are as ordered as yours.
?
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
SILVER Member
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
15,417 posts
Location: South Wales
Posted:
Written by: faithinfire
Rosie O'Donnell called the soldiers terrorists
Written by: Rosie O'Donnel
"I don't know anything about Afghanistan, but I know it's full of terrorists - speaking as a mother"
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
OWD: you aren't listening...seriously talk to the soldiers and see if they think they are doing primarily negative things
UCOF: not the right quote, but I appreciate the effort. I'll go see if i can find it
Basically her and the other girl got into it and Rosie quoted the number of Iraqis dead during our time there and then asked other girl who do you think the terrorists are?
OWD: you aren't listening...seriously talk to the soldiers and see if they think they are doing primarily negative things
UCOF: not the right quote, but I appreciate the effort. I'll go see if i can find it
Basically her and the other girl got into it and Rosie quoted the number of Iraqis dead during our time there and then asked other girl who do you think the terrorists are?
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
you can legally own a firearm in Europe, you can legally own a firearm in Europe, you can legally own... (under certain circumstances) but only few choose to do so, but only few choose to do so, but only... (in general)
When will you get it? The government is NOT completely "depriving" us from that... It just puts conditions on it and heighten the efforts one has to undertake to get one. Why does Switzerland - on average - got (more) armed citizens than the US (don't shoot me if I quoted incorrect), but not even remotely as much (gun related crimes) happening?
Yes, I do feel that a gun holds "dark energy" (as in negative) - as it's primary function is to kill (very easy). Archery (in comparison) is much more (mentally)demanding, as are all other weapons. It alters the (average) human psyche and respect. YES! Bans are related to fear (at least when it comes to guns) and the USsians approve this fear, or incapability of a responsible handling of some constitutional rights - with human (innocent) losses involved. Personally I would love to build up more trust, but again and again there is an irresposile and instable gun owner who diminishes it. As I said: it's not guns killing people - but they make it more easy...
NO - Iraq is not a safer place now than it has been before the war and YES, the problem was primaily created by the US government (even before GWB was in power) by building up and supporting Saddam Hussein in the first place and by forging evidence of "smoking guns". Don't fall your the propaganda of your government or pro-conservative lobbyists... US and other soldiers might have the (desired) attitude that they are helping the Iraqis, where in fact they are just (ab)used to clean the crap their governments caused. Certainly the soldiers are not thinking they are doing something negative. But maybe there is something in the human psyche you seem to succeedingly ignore (as least when it comes to politics, orders... and gun ownership).
You are pointing out that this is a domestic issue only, whilst we are constantly trying to make you aware that your "domestic issues" (gun laws, death penalty, abuse and hippocricy when it comes to human rights) are in fact reflecting on your foreign policies... which on the other side are closely obseved... and as long as your domestic issues are not resolved, you may find it very hard to export these, US american "values"... in contrary turn you into a "rogue state" yourself.
And YES once more: I would say that an intoxicated gun owner is potentially as harmful as a drunk driver, as their perception and ability to make an accurate judgement may be heavily altered - which makes me demand regular and random drug testing of gun owners - and in the following that everyone, who (legally) owns a gun, should be registered. But I'm certain that this (my) "demand" is like trying to stop ppl from cutting down the Amazonian rainforest = ridiculous.
Flashpoints analogy is correct, but from my own experience everytime I had a condom, I didn't run into a situation where I could have needed one - irony of life
therefore I rather have none and aim for a more responsible and faithful lifestyle. But that's just me.
And Lurch, certainly you are a realist by arming yourself when living in the US - hence this has less to do with "free will" rather than "cause and effect"... You in fact do arm yourself out of paranoia and fear - IMO - your ability to ignore this fact is hillarious and frustrating at the same time. If you'd live in a (more) peaceful environment, you would not arm yourself (in public) or have a gun at home, but maybe just go to the shooting range to get the kicks. IF you'd trust your government and democratic forces, i.e. the will and abilities of your society (enough), you would not feel the urge to defend yourself against it... Your quotes derive from the 15./16.th century (Macchiavelli) and his environment. Ironically - if you investigate beyond your political interest - you will find that he wrote two books (Discorsi - propagating the republic, and Il Pricipe - which later every powerhungry despotism was referring to)... "Il Principe" was one foundation on which the royals were educated and it propagated the reckless use of violence. Macchiavellism is a political teaching, that strongly bases upon the ethical jusification of evil when it comes to a (feudalist) system defending itself.
You are quoting the very man, whose philosophy you might have to defend yourself from (god fobid)
I simply don't buy the fairy tales of wild cats and bears roaming the cities of the US, as the urge to be the self entitled shepard dog. The numbers of wolves out there usually is a product of the society and political system in the first place... Similar to the situation in Iraq.
You seem to have a blind eye to how a political system works: Criminal offenders, poverty and problems on the (inter) national stage are needed and created as much as is paranoia and fear in order to perpetuate itself. They are vital elements in a political system - therefore IF you seriously want to tackle the (existing and abusive) political system, it's best to do so by building and improving your own trust in this (your very own) life, to lay down (your) arms and persue a path of non-violence...
Btw we are in fact practicing MA and approach it in a playul way by spinning poi and staff (the other toys - swords, nun-chaks, fans, cups, dart ropes, whips set aside), improving body conrol and understanding of physics... and self defence, along with expanding our minds capacity. THIS improves self esteem and confidence so much more than a profane instrument of death... maybe you try it? 
you can legally own a firearm in Europe, you can legally own a firearm in Europe, you can legally own... (under certain circumstances) but only few choose to do so, but only few choose to do so, but only... (in general) When will you get it? The government is NOT completely "depriving" us from that... It just puts conditions on it and heighten the efforts one has to undertake to get one. Why does Switzerland - on average - got (more) armed citizens than the US (don't shoot me if I quoted incorrect), but not even remotely as much (gun related crimes) happening?
Yes, I do feel that a gun holds "dark energy" (as in negative) - as it's primary function is to kill (very easy). Archery (in comparison) is much more (mentally)demanding, as are all other weapons. It alters the (average) human psyche and respect. YES! Bans are related to fear (at least when it comes to guns) and the USsians approve this fear, or incapability of a responsible handling of some constitutional rights - with human (innocent) losses involved. Personally I would love to build up more trust, but again and again there is an irresposile and instable gun owner who diminishes it. As I said: it's not guns killing people - but they make it more easy...
NO - Iraq is not a safer place now than it has been before the war and YES, the problem was primaily created by the US government (even before GWB was in power) by building up and supporting Saddam Hussein in the first place and by forging evidence of "smoking guns". Don't fall your the propaganda of your government or pro-conservative lobbyists... US and other soldiers might have the (desired) attitude that they are helping the Iraqis, where in fact they are just (ab)used to clean the crap their governments caused. Certainly the soldiers are not thinking they are doing something negative. But maybe there is something in the human psyche you seem to succeedingly ignore (as least when it comes to politics, orders... and gun ownership).
You are pointing out that this is a domestic issue only, whilst we are constantly trying to make you aware that your "domestic issues" (gun laws, death penalty, abuse and hippocricy when it comes to human rights) are in fact reflecting on your foreign policies... which on the other side are closely obseved... and as long as your domestic issues are not resolved, you may find it very hard to export these, US american "values"... in contrary turn you into a "rogue state" yourself.
And YES once more: I would say that an intoxicated gun owner is potentially as harmful as a drunk driver, as their perception and ability to make an accurate judgement may be heavily altered - which makes me demand regular and random drug testing of gun owners - and in the following that everyone, who (legally) owns a gun, should be registered. But I'm certain that this (my) "demand" is like trying to stop ppl from cutting down the Amazonian rainforest = ridiculous.
Flashpoints analogy is correct, but from my own experience everytime I had a condom, I didn't run into a situation where I could have needed one - irony of life
therefore I rather have none and aim for a more responsible and faithful lifestyle. But that's just me.And Lurch, certainly you are a realist by arming yourself when living in the US - hence this has less to do with "free will" rather than "cause and effect"... You in fact do arm yourself out of paranoia and fear - IMO - your ability to ignore this fact is hillarious and frustrating at the same time. If you'd live in a (more) peaceful environment, you would not arm yourself (in public) or have a gun at home, but maybe just go to the shooting range to get the kicks. IF you'd trust your government and democratic forces, i.e. the will and abilities of your society (enough), you would not feel the urge to defend yourself against it... Your quotes derive from the 15./16.th century (Macchiavelli) and his environment. Ironically - if you investigate beyond your political interest - you will find that he wrote two books (Discorsi - propagating the republic, and Il Pricipe - which later every powerhungry despotism was referring to)... "Il Principe" was one foundation on which the royals were educated and it propagated the reckless use of violence. Macchiavellism is a political teaching, that strongly bases upon the ethical jusification of evil when it comes to a (feudalist) system defending itself.
You are quoting the very man, whose philosophy you might have to defend yourself from (god fobid) I simply don't buy the fairy tales of wild cats and bears roaming the cities of the US, as the urge to be the self entitled shepard dog. The numbers of wolves out there usually is a product of the society and political system in the first place... Similar to the situation in Iraq.
You seem to have a blind eye to how a political system works: Criminal offenders, poverty and problems on the (inter) national stage are needed and created as much as is paranoia and fear in order to perpetuate itself. They are vital elements in a political system - therefore IF you seriously want to tackle the (existing and abusive) political system, it's best to do so by building and improving your own trust in this (your very own) life, to lay down (your) arms and persue a path of non-violence...
Btw we are in fact practicing MA and approach it in a playul way by spinning poi and staff (the other toys - swords, nun-chaks, fans, cups, dart ropes, whips set aside), improving body conrol and understanding of physics... and self defence, along with expanding our minds capacity. THIS improves self esteem and confidence so much more than a profane instrument of death... maybe you try it?
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
You forgot the most important part of that quotation OWD.. else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
I'll save my foreign policy comment for later, but the basic needs for life, food, water, electricity, are all FAR more accessible now than they were before the war to the Iraqi people. There is still a war going on, of course people are dieing, but they have more freedoms now than they have had in decades.
Have you talked to any vets? You might hear a vastly different story from what you hear through the media. Yes there are soldiers who oppose the war, but if you listen to them it's mostly because the people (Americans) have not fully committed to the effort, and are making their jobs impossible by not giving them the things they need to be effective.
Please stop calling them 'frontier philosophies' or 'cowboy' or the like. We're not hillbillies out here, there is a heavy negative connotation in the way you're using those terms. Just because our philosophies are different from yours does not make them simple minded.
Where did I say that was essential to maintain order? Where have you proven that gun ownership by the public causes more crime? As you yourself have so kindly pointed out, we're entirely different cultures, with different views on violence, and different criminals. Crime, the very basis of what we're looking to fix, is fairly universal, the tools, and the types change dependant on the culture, but the 'evil' acts are there nonetheless. As I've said again and again, the guns are not the problem. And if they help to save even a small number of live, they're worth it.
Well that's mighty biased and shortsighted when you don't even give guns a proper chance. YOU are the one empowering guns with this dark energy. To me a gun isn't about killing, it's about protecting, those are two *very* different things. Understand, comprehend..
Yes, that is completely ridiculous.. Would you approve of complete random drug tests of anyone with a drivers license? You're treating people like criminals when they've done nothing wrong. One should be able to live their life without having to justify everything they do. I don't want a 'Big Brother' state telling me what I'm allowed to do or not. You may, but I do not.
Don't assume things. I live in a very peaceful small city. I can't even remember the last time a fight took place here, let alone an extremely violent crime. I still own guns, it's not from paranoia or fear, quit assuming things that you don't understand. If the only way you can understand one wanting to own a gun is to imagine yourself in a perpetual state of fear, than you're more blind than I thought.
There are situations where violence is needed, and the correct choice. You may not agree with that, and that is your right, but don't tell me I'm wrong. You call guns a 'profane instrument of death.' You've already made up your mind on stereotypes and assumptions. Nothing I tell you is going to change that, all it shows is that you either don't understand, or aren't willing to look at guns from an unbiased viewpoint.
Apologies for not tackling all the points, or if I'm rather blunt today, I'm working graveyard and its 6:30 in the morning so I'm a wee bit tired..
Written by:
The fact that many 'kingdoms' exist where the populace aren't armed (eg the UK and most of Europe etc) and that those kindgoms are secure (certainly we have far less to worry about where shootings are concerned) would suggest that the quote is simply wrong.
You forgot the most important part of that quotation OWD.. else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
Written by:
Lurch, I don't know where you get you news from, but there is a civil war going on in Iraq. And yes, I would prefer America did nothing as far a foreign policy is concerned
I'll save my foreign policy comment for later, but the basic needs for life, food, water, electricity, are all FAR more accessible now than they were before the war to the Iraqi people. There is still a war going on, of course people are dieing, but they have more freedoms now than they have had in decades.
Written by:
We will make judgements based on news reports from various sources, as that is the only way to come to conclusions- what method do you use to work out what's going on over there?
Have you talked to any vets? You might hear a vastly different story from what you hear through the media. Yes there are soldiers who oppose the war, but if you listen to them it's mostly because the people (Americans) have not fully committed to the effort, and are making their jobs impossible by not giving them the things they need to be effective.
Written by:
Whereas Europeans would not be at all concerned about 'freedom to bear arms', 'frontier philosohies' etc- they'd simpy take a pragmatic view that the option that, overall, leads to less shootings of non-criminals, is the option to take.
Please stop calling them 'frontier philosophies' or 'cowboy' or the like. We're not hillbillies out here, there is a heavy negative connotation in the way you're using those terms. Just because our philosophies are different from yours does not make them simple minded.
Written by:
Put yourself in our place, we're being told by U.S, pro-gunners that public gun ownership cuts gun crimes and is even essential to maintain order- yet, all the time we're aware of the apparently contradictory fact that we ourselves live in a culture where guns are heavily restricted or banned, yet our gun crime stats are far lower than yours and our societies are as ordered as yours.
Where did I say that was essential to maintain order? Where have you proven that gun ownership by the public causes more crime? As you yourself have so kindly pointed out, we're entirely different cultures, with different views on violence, and different criminals. Crime, the very basis of what we're looking to fix, is fairly universal, the tools, and the types change dependant on the culture, but the 'evil' acts are there nonetheless. As I've said again and again, the guns are not the problem. And if they help to save even a small number of live, they're worth it.
Written by:
Yes, I do feel that a gun holds "dark energy" (as in negative) - as it's primary function is to kill (very easy). Archery (in comparison) is much more (mentally)demanding, as are all other weapons.
Well that's mighty biased and shortsighted when you don't even give guns a proper chance. YOU are the one empowering guns with this dark energy. To me a gun isn't about killing, it's about protecting, those are two *very* different things. Understand, comprehend..
Written by:
And YES once more: I would say that an intoxicated gun owner is potentially as harmful as a drunk driver, as their perception and ability to make an accurate judgement may be heavily altered - which makes me demand regular and random drug testing of gun owners - and in the following that everyone, who (legally) owns a gun, should be registered. But I'm certain that this (my) "demand" is like trying to stop ppl from cutting down the Amazonian rainforest = ridiculous.
Yes, that is completely ridiculous.. Would you approve of complete random drug tests of anyone with a drivers license? You're treating people like criminals when they've done nothing wrong. One should be able to live their life without having to justify everything they do. I don't want a 'Big Brother' state telling me what I'm allowed to do or not. You may, but I do not.
Written by:
And Lurch, certainly you are a realist by arming yourself when living in the US - hence this has less to do with "free will" rather than "cause and effect"... You in fact do arm yourself out of paranoia and fear - IMO - your ability to ignore this fact is hillarious and frustrating at the same time. If you'd live in a (more) peaceful environment, you would not arm yourself (in public) or have a gun at home, but maybe just go to the shooting range to get the kicks.
Don't assume things. I live in a very peaceful small city. I can't even remember the last time a fight took place here, let alone an extremely violent crime. I still own guns, it's not from paranoia or fear, quit assuming things that you don't understand. If the only way you can understand one wanting to own a gun is to imagine yourself in a perpetual state of fear, than you're more blind than I thought.
Written by:
lay down (your) arms and persue a path of non-violence...
There are situations where violence is needed, and the correct choice. You may not agree with that, and that is your right, but don't tell me I'm wrong. You call guns a 'profane instrument of death.' You've already made up your mind on stereotypes and assumptions. Nothing I tell you is going to change that, all it shows is that you either don't understand, or aren't willing to look at guns from an unbiased viewpoint.
Apologies for not tackling all the points, or if I'm rather blunt today, I'm working graveyard and its 6:30 in the morning so I'm a wee bit tired..
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
Ok fine, you can own guns, then why are you tell us that we need to ban guns
There are many gun activities that reflect archery. Oh and what were arrows meant to do. As we have pointed out, most guns are not used in a protection only aspect, but used recreationally. Most people in the US do not have CCW.
Don't tell me not to fall for propaganda, and I won't tell you not to gobble up all the crap that you hear. I make my decisions by the soldiers because they are the ones who are there. I make my decision by the happy faces of Iraqis I see in the pictures. No there are areas there that are not safe. But there are farming areas and quiet towns. The entire area is not Baghdad.
I don't see how my choice to own a gun or not reflects what the government does outside the country. As for Switzerland, it might do good for everyone to have to spend a couple of years in the army. Switzerland is not the only country who does that and they have greater education and respect for guns because of it.
What you said about the condom from what flashpoint said is what we are saying though. It isn't a bad thing not to have to take out the gun. It is preferable. But it isn't a bad thing to have
Get it through your head that the government does not prevent or stop crimes. They prosecute and hopefully stop it from happening again. We as citizens have the responsiblity to help prevent crimes.
And I see you've fallen to insulting our intelligence, smilies or not.
We aren't talking about cities with mountain lions and bears, though they have been known to wander through. Despite what the foreign media might portray, we still have wild country with trees and mountains and deserts. We have deep woods where people hike. Farms and ranches out west. In northern CA, you hear about people being attacked by mountain lions at least twice a year. and that is just the stories that get national attention.
Ok fine, you can own guns, then why are you tell us that we need to ban guns
There are many gun activities that reflect archery. Oh and what were arrows meant to do. As we have pointed out, most guns are not used in a protection only aspect, but used recreationally. Most people in the US do not have CCW.
Don't tell me not to fall for propaganda, and I won't tell you not to gobble up all the crap that you hear. I make my decisions by the soldiers because they are the ones who are there. I make my decision by the happy faces of Iraqis I see in the pictures. No there are areas there that are not safe. But there are farming areas and quiet towns. The entire area is not Baghdad.
I don't see how my choice to own a gun or not reflects what the government does outside the country. As for Switzerland, it might do good for everyone to have to spend a couple of years in the army. Switzerland is not the only country who does that and they have greater education and respect for guns because of it.
What you said about the condom from what flashpoint said is what we are saying though. It isn't a bad thing not to have to take out the gun. It is preferable. But it isn't a bad thing to have
Get it through your head that the government does not prevent or stop crimes. They prosecute and hopefully stop it from happening again. We as citizens have the responsiblity to help prevent crimes.
And I see you've fallen to insulting our intelligence, smilies or not.
We aren't talking about cities with mountain lions and bears, though they have been known to wander through. Despite what the foreign media might portray, we still have wild country with trees and mountains and deserts. We have deep woods where people hike. Farms and ranches out west. In northern CA, you hear about people being attacked by mountain lions at least twice a year. and that is just the stories that get national attention.
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
SILVER Member
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
coming to a country near you
4,696 posts
Location: home of the tiney toothy bear, Australia
Posted:
i think regardless, they need a lot more help than we're giving them at the moment. what have the soldiers you've talked to been doing there faith? perhaps if bush was spending more money on "aid for iraq" instead of "the war in iraq" there might be some change in peoples hearts.
anyway, can we please get back onto domestic issues, i feel people linger too much on stickbeating over iraq.
oh by the way, i just love how the five biggest small arms dealers in the world are also the five permanent members of the UN security council cracks me up
[1]https://www.ifrc.org/cgi/pdf_appeals.pl?05/05EA026final.pdf
[2]https://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/07/MDRIQ00201.pdf
Written by: faithinfire
Don't tell me not to fall for propaganda, and I won't tell you not to gobble up all the crap that you hear. I make my decisions by the soldiers because they are the ones who are there. I make my decision by the happy faces of Iraqis I see in the pictures. No there are areas there that are not safe. But there are farming areas and quiet towns. The entire area is not Baghdad.
Written by: International Federation of Red Cross and Red Cresent Societies
The most recent figures from the UN on the "Newly Displaced Populations in Iraq" shows that 106, 660 families (639, 960 individuals) have been displaced since the incidence of bombing of the holy shrine in Samara - late feburay 2006. this is on top of the 1.2 million people already displaced before 2006, bringing the total IDP's in Iraq to 1.8 million [1]
i think regardless, they need a lot more help than we're giving them at the moment. what have the soldiers you've talked to been doing there faith? perhaps if bush was spending more money on "aid for iraq" instead of "the war in iraq" there might be some change in peoples hearts.
anyway, can we please get back onto domestic issues, i feel people linger too much on stickbeating over iraq.
oh by the way, i just love how the five biggest small arms dealers in the world are also the five permanent members of the UN security council
cracks me up[1]https://www.ifrc.org/cgi/pdf_appeals.pl?05/05EA026final.pdf
[2]https://www.ifrc.org/docs/appeals/07/MDRIQ00201.pdf
"but have you considered there is more to life than your eyelids?"
jointly owned by Fire_Spinning_Angel and Blu_Valley
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Majestic, but this would mean he would have to first keep his promise on rebuilding Afghanistan...
Back to topic: There was no offence meant, maybe you just had a bad day.
Accusing me of providing that (negative) energy in the first place, seems to me as to charge a vibrator for causing a divorce
Do the "protective qualities" of a gun result from their "reproductive aspects"? Like "Hey I'm gonna shoot you to live!"
Given that you've been writing that being tired I spare more comments...
This is what I ceased to tell the officers every time they stop me...
Lurch, this IS common practice. I am also pro eye-testing of senior drivers past age 60... does it make me a tyrant because I demand them to actually see where they are going?
You seem to make no sense in this, whilst accusing the anti-guns of not being "open"... I would even leave you with your guns now, if you would be ready to follow a slightly heightened effort in order to keep them... but this is asked too much either Excuse me for asking: did you name your guns individually? ....... 
Majestic, thanks for the links indeed I feel safer knowing that
Majestic, but this would mean he would have to first keep his promise on rebuilding Afghanistan...
Back to topic: There was no offence meant, maybe you just had a bad day.
Accusing me of providing that (negative) energy in the first place, seems to me as to charge a vibrator for causing a divorce
Do the "protective qualities" of a gun result from their "reproductive aspects"? Like "Hey I'm gonna shoot you to live!"
Given that you've been writing that being tired I spare more comments... Written by: Lurch
Would you approve of complete random drug tests of anyone with a drivers license? You're treating people like criminals when they've done nothing wrong.
This is what I ceased to tell the officers every time they stop me...
Lurch, this IS common practice. I am also pro eye-testing of senior drivers past age 60... does it make me a tyrant because I demand them to actually see where they are going?
You seem to make no sense in this, whilst accusing the anti-guns of not being "open"... I would even leave you with your guns now, if you would be ready to follow a slightly heightened effort in order to keep them... but this is asked too much either
Excuse me for asking: did you name your guns individually? ....... Majestic, thanks for the links
indeed I feel safer knowing that the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
Tom: no one has said we wouldn't be open to heighten testing and licensing. some of us have even said that regular reevaluations would be a good thing. Irresponsible gun owners give all gun owners a bad name.
You all are the ones who say the US should ban guns when what I gather from your posts is that they aren't even banned in your countries. WTF
Majestik: it would be more helpful if we knew the areas that they are being displaced from and where they ended up and how they feel about the displacement.
My friends have been on the frontline but also in farming areas where they rebuild roads, help build wells. They delivered school supplies all over. Even those who are in the dangerous areas spend part of the time helping with the infrastructure. Suicide bombers keep blowing up roads and schools.
Remember foreign policy directly relates to our domestic policy according to the anti-gun camp so don't worry your post was supposedly on topic
Tom: no one has said we wouldn't be open to heighten testing and licensing. some of us have even said that regular reevaluations would be a good thing. Irresponsible gun owners give all gun owners a bad name.
You all are the ones who say the US should ban guns when what I gather from your posts is that they aren't even banned in your countries. WTF
Majestik: it would be more helpful if we knew the areas that they are being displaced from and where they ended up and how they feel about the displacement.
My friends have been on the frontline but also in farming areas where they rebuild roads, help build wells. They delivered school supplies all over. Even those who are in the dangerous areas spend part of the time helping with the infrastructure. Suicide bombers keep blowing up roads and schools.
Remember foreign policy directly relates to our domestic policy according to the anti-gun camp so don't worry your post was supposedly on topic
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Again, all I can say is that, here in the UK, we do not live precariously- statistically we're far less likely than the U.S. citizen to be shot/attacked by a gun carrying assailant.
Basically, all I can do is apologise- I genuinely didn't think that the term 'frontier philosohies' would cause offence.
You'll notice that i did not use the term 'cowboy' as i can understand why that would seem to be insulting.
I'll take it on board and not use the term again- I apologise for using it and can assure you that it was used in ignorance- it's not my style to use cheap put-downs in a debate.
Your posting of the quote-
seemed to be implying that guns were essential to maintain social order- maybe I've misunderstood and you could explain why you were using that quote?
I haven't. I was mainly pointing out that gun ownership doesn't seem to cut crime (as most U.S. pro-gunners seem to be maintaining) as, in the UK/Europe, general crime levels aren't higher than in the U.S. and guncrimes are significantly lower than in the U.S.
Basically, the UK and Europe are counter-examples to the hypothesis that public gun ownership helps against crime.
Written by: LurchWritten by:
The fact that many 'kingdoms' exist where the populace aren't armed (eg the UK and most of Europe etc) and that those kindgoms are secure (certainly we have far less to worry about where shootings are concerned) would suggest that the quote is simply wrong.
You forgot the most important part of that quotation OWD.. else he lives precariously, and at discretion.
Again, all I can say is that, here in the UK, we do not live precariously- statistically we're far less likely than the U.S. citizen to be shot/attacked by a gun carrying assailant.
Written by: LurchWritten by:
Whereas Europeans would not be at all concerned about 'freedom to bear arms', 'frontier philosohies' etc- they'd simpy take a pragmatic view that the option that, overall, leads to less shootings of non-criminals, is the option to take.
Please stop calling them 'frontier philosophies' or 'cowboy' or the like. We're not hillbillies out here, there is a heavy negative connotation in the way you're using those terms. Just because our philosophies are different from yours does not make them simple minded.
Basically, all I can do is apologise- I genuinely didn't think that the term 'frontier philosohies' would cause offence.
You'll notice that i did not use the term 'cowboy' as i can understand why that would seem to be insulting.
I'll take it on board and not use the term again- I apologise for using it and can assure you that it was used in ignorance- it's not my style to use cheap put-downs in a debate.
Written by: lurchWritten by:
Put yourself in our place, we're being told by U.S, pro-gunners that public gun ownership cuts gun crimes and is even essential to maintain order- yet, all the time we're aware of the apparently contradictory fact that we ourselves live in a culture where guns are heavily restricted or banned, yet our gun crime stats are far lower than yours and our societies are as ordered as yours.
Where did I say that was essential to maintain order?
Your posting of the quote-
Written by:
No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. - James Burgh
seemed to be implying that guns were essential to maintain social order- maybe I've misunderstood and you could explain why you were using that quote?
Written by:
Where have you proven that gun ownership by the public causes more crime?
I haven't. I was mainly pointing out that gun ownership doesn't seem to cut crime (as most U.S. pro-gunners seem to be maintaining) as, in the UK/Europe, general crime levels aren't higher than in the U.S. and guncrimes are significantly lower than in the U.S.
Basically, the UK and Europe are counter-examples to the hypothesis that public gun ownership helps against crime.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
old hand
929 posts
Location: Oregon, USA
Posted:
Oddly enough I agree. We *could* be doing a lot better over there, we've been restricted. The war was doomed from the start because we didn't have enough support going in, and the troops weren't allowed the resources they needed. Now more than ever they need that support, and now more than ever the people are refusing to give it. It's a sad state..
I still stand by that (I still haven't slept though... graveyard + class isn't fun). If you were trying to kill me, and I killed you first, I have survived. What difference does it make *how* I survived? Are you worried about the criminal who placed the victim in the situation?
Two very different issues. Generally speaking a LEO must have a reason to pull you over, which means you've already broken *some* law at some point. Don't worry, we all do now and then. YOUR reaction to that is going to determine more than anything how the officer reacts.
Require an eye test due to a natural degradation from age is not unreasonable. Demanding someone to submit to a drug test is not the same.
I have enough regulations and guidelines to follow. MY guns are not the ones causing the problems. Illegal guns are, making *more* regulations will not do anything to stop illegal guns from being illegal.
How many hoops do you want me to jump through? If I keep jumping, you'll just keep putting up more hoops until I can't jump anymore. That's not right, it's leading down a very very dark road when you start doing things like that.
And no, I haven't named my guns.. I do treat them with the care and respect I would treat a child though.. so they are my babies in a sense...
Written by:
i think regardless, they need a lot more help than we're giving them at the moment. what have the soldiers you've talked to been doing there faith? perhaps if bush was spending more money on "aid for iraq" instead of "the war in iraq" there might be some change in peoples hearts.
Oddly enough I agree. We *could* be doing a lot better over there, we've been restricted. The war was doomed from the start because we didn't have enough support going in, and the troops weren't allowed the resources they needed. Now more than ever they need that support, and now more than ever the people are refusing to give it. It's a sad state..
Written by:
Do the "protective qualities" of a gun result from their "reproductive aspects"? Like "Hey I'm gonna shoot you to live!"
I still stand by that (I still haven't slept though... graveyard + class isn't fun). If you were trying to kill me, and I killed you first, I have survived. What difference does it make *how* I survived? Are you worried about the criminal who placed the victim in the situation?
Written by:
This is what I ceased to tell the officers every time they stop me...
Lurch, this IS common practice. I am also pro eye-testing of senior drivers past age 60... does it make me a tyrant because I demand them to actually see where they are going?
Two very different issues. Generally speaking a LEO must have a reason to pull you over, which means you've already broken *some* law at some point. Don't worry, we all do now and then. YOUR reaction to that is going to determine more than anything how the officer reacts.
Require an eye test due to a natural degradation from age is not unreasonable. Demanding someone to submit to a drug test is not the same.
Written by:
You seem to make no sense in this, whilst accusing the anti-guns of not being "open"... I would even leave you with your guns now, if you would be ready to follow a slightly heightened effort in order to keep them... but this is asked too much either Excuse me for asking: did you name your guns individually?
I have enough regulations and guidelines to follow. MY guns are not the ones causing the problems. Illegal guns are, making *more* regulations will not do anything to stop illegal guns from being illegal.
How many hoops do you want me to jump through? If I keep jumping, you'll just keep putting up more hoops until I can't jump anymore. That's not right, it's leading down a very very dark road when you start doing things like that.
And no, I haven't named my guns.. I do treat them with the care and respect I would treat a child though.. so they are my babies in a sense...
#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored
Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
I would highly appreciate it, if you would at least make a minimal effort and try to inform yourself about where we are coming from... do a Google search and just punch in "European gun laws" and it's all out there for you... [/pungent irony]
Old Times aticle on European gun laws
More recent Spiegel aticle on Switzerlands gun laws, which are about to change
To me it is simply ridiculous that one would own and hold a gun in his possession (with this putting his own and the lives of his relatives and friends at a higher risk) whilst he is living in one of the most peaceful surroundings... you are right: I do NOT understand this.
Are you declaring yourself to be the sheperds dog, where there are no wolves around... ??? If this is for the vast chance that you one day have got to fight your own government, or are you simply bored out of your skull and try to impress the ladies?
Lurch, you did say that "this kid deserved to die" - later putting this statement more politically correct... unlike in this discussion, out there you may not as easily be able to reconsider your judgement... Why do you oppose mandatory, random drug testing and registering of gun ownership? Because you refrain from recreational drugs? If so, how about others, who are abusing all kinds of drugs, altering their perception and affecting their sound judgement?
You quote Macciavelli... do you inform yourself about his background and why he wrote what with which effect? (sigh)
I would highly appreciate it, if you would at least make a minimal effort and try to inform yourself about where we are coming from... do a Google search and just punch in "European gun laws" and it's all out there for you... [/pungent irony]
Old Times aticle on European gun laws
Written by: Times 2002
Europe's restrictive gun laws may make the American pro-gun lobby recoil like a blunderbuss, but European governments hardly care. They maintain that limiting gun ownership to hunters, collectors and gun-club members has helped keep firearm homicide rates much lower than those of the U.S. According to figures recently compiled by the British Home Office, the European Union's average homicide rate per 100,000 people in 1997-99 was 1.7, compared to 6.26 in the U.S. — and 20.52 in Russia.
More recent Spiegel aticle on Switzerlands gun laws, which are about to change
Written by: Spiegel May 2007
The new motion is considered to have a good chance of success. A recent poll by the mass circulation newspaper Blick showed that 66 percent of Swiss want a ban on guns being stored at home, while 76 percent said there was no need to store both guns and ammunition at home in order to defend the country.
Meanwhile proponents of gun control are trying to force through a popular vote in favor of tightening guns laws, which they hope will take place in summer 2007. The initiative calls for imposing restrictions on who is allowed to own guns and keep them at home.
To me it is simply ridiculous that one would own and hold a gun in his possession (with this putting his own and the lives of his relatives and friends at a higher risk) whilst he is living in one of the most peaceful surroundings...
you are right: I do NOT understand this. Are you declaring yourself to be the sheperds dog, where there are no wolves around... ??? If this is for the vast chance that you one day have got to fight your own government, or are you simply bored out of your skull and try to impress the ladies?
Lurch, you did say that "this kid deserved to die" - later putting this statement more politically correct... unlike in this discussion, out there you may not as easily be able to reconsider your judgement... Why do you oppose mandatory, random drug testing and registering of gun ownership? Because you refrain from recreational drugs? If so, how about others, who are abusing all kinds of drugs, altering their perception and affecting their sound judgement?
You quote Macciavelli... do you inform yourself about his background and why he wrote what with which effect? (sigh)
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
The gun owners here have made it more than clear that the surrounds are not as peaceful as the surface looks
Where I used to live, there were regular shootings, robberies and rapes. There are neighborhoods that you don't walk into unless they know you. There was a threat to kill us, so we made sure that people thought it would be a fight, ended up talking it through
pounce has potentially violent situations in her line of work, where people are armed
lurch does rescue, and not all animals are cute and fuzzy
and stop talking down to us like we are children
OWD and Lurch: I used cowboys, I think someone else did too, but I used it to represent the US take on how we feel about the "frontier philosophy." Sorry, for any confusion
The gun owners here have made it more than clear that the surrounds are not as peaceful as the surface looks
Where I used to live, there were regular shootings, robberies and rapes. There are neighborhoods that you don't walk into unless they know you. There was a threat to kill us, so we made sure that people thought it would be a fight, ended up talking it through
pounce has potentially violent situations in her line of work, where people are armed
lurch does rescue, and not all animals are cute and fuzzy
and stop talking down to us like we are children
OWD and Lurch: I used cowboys, I think someone else did too, but I used it to represent the US take on how we feel about the "frontier philosophy." Sorry, for any confusion
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [gun law * license murder] we found the following existing topics.
- Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1294 replies]
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com