Forums > Social Discussion > Ok, now I'm scared

Posted: 9th Apr 2003

quote:

---

Originally posted by DJ Dantana:

And would you rather the GGG (Gun Grabing Gore) got elected?

talk about stuck between a bad choice and a worse choice... at least Bush doesn't openly try to take away our guns.

---

Yeah he's just responsible for the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Bill.

Would you say the same if one or the other imposed on your second amendment rights in the name of "Homeland security".

Part of why I didn't vote is because I didn't want to support either one of them.That and I wasn't as well up on the other choices and wasn't aware of "spoiling".I will be voting in 2004.However, DaiT don't delude yourself into believing that he isn't gonna get re-elected.

Posted: 9th Apr 2003
That's a good point. Gore wanted to take away only one ammendment right. Bush took away multiple rights.

Personally I think it's sad when people hold the right to bear arms in higher regard then all the shit the patriot act took away. I am pro gun I just think some people are a bit to gun crazy and they can't see any further past the sights of their ar-15

Posted: 9th Apr 2003
I am pro-gun too being a member of the NRA.

I think it is sad that people think it is okay to take away gun rights but get pissed when their free speech or choice is threatened.

Part of what made America great in the first place was the insertion of these rights. None of these rights should be taken away for any reason.

Posted: 9th Apr 2003
theres so many people who have so many diffrent versions of gun control it's a hard thing to discuss in general terms. But regulating guns does not equal takeing them away. Sometimes pro-gun people go so crazy when someone suggests banning or regulating anything related to guns. The NRA didn't want them to ban 100% plastic guns (im not talking plastic frame here, im talking about guns with no other purpose but to slip through metal detectors, as they are worthless as practical firearms in any circumstances other then a assasination or hijacking)

I am completly ignorant about what gore wanted to do with guns and it was probably something stupid and unconstitutional.

But I am for a few aspects of gun control. Like a waiting period when you buy a gun, the requirement to take a safety course before you buy a gun, the requirement to store guns properly and safely and the elimination of stupid rounds like the 9mm +P+. Other then that people should have their guns.

Posted: 9th Apr 2003
Gun controle

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded

2. Keep the weapon on safe untill you are ready to fire

3. Keep your finger strait and off the trigger untill you are ready to fire

4. Do not point the weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot


If everyone followed those four simple rules, we would never have a problem!

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
Ray there is more to it then that.

Like don't use high penetration rounds for self defense when you live in a crowded fileing cabinet for an apartment with paper thin rounds.

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
I think you meant paper thin walls

Well... you know, is it leagle to shoot an intruder?
Of Course there is more to it then that, but if you utalise those four rules you will find accidental deaths drop dramatically.

You have to start somewhere and banning all guns isnt the answer.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
Ok, now I'M scared. Probably because I come from a country where all handguns are banned. You all think that banning guns is such a ridiculous idea? If someone gets shot in the UK then its National News. Does it make the local papers in the US?

You're talking about 'freedoms being taken away'. So what?

Your freedom to murder or rape other people has been taken away. Is that a bad thing?
If you want to keep a nuclear missile in your back yard I reckon the government would have something to say. Thats another freedom thats been taken from you, but I wouldn't cry about it too much.
Whats different with not allowing random members of the public to go out and buy handy easy to use lethal weapons?

Guns are created for one purpose: To propel lumps of metal into the flesh of living creatures.

That wasn't a basic human right last time I looked.

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
hmm. i normally like your lines of argument si but this is more sensationalist than usual.
gun deaths have *always* been national news in the uk, not just since the ban of handguns - you can't compare the proliferation of guns in the us to the uk.
shootings happen every weekend in this country and you don't hear about them.
i suggest you check out the stats for gun related crime since the ban and think again about how effective a policy it is...

yes, guns were *invented* for one purpose - to kill things. but knives were only invented for the same purpose. three section staffs were invented for battering people with, bows were invented to fire arrows at people and whips were invented to punish living things. all of these things that were invented to kill things, we have found other uses for since - ways to use and often enjoy these objects of destruction.

i shoot clay pigeons for fun.
does owning my shotgun still make me a gun-toting madman who considers killing others to be one of his basic human rights?

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
A touch sensationalist perhaps, but it was a big area to cover and I'm meant to be working

Gun crime has increased since the very recent handgun ban, as once legal ones are sold on the black market to less reputable owners. Thats an unfortunate temporary side effect. I didn't mean to give the idea there is less gun crime in UK than US because of the recent handgun ban, but rather as a result of tighter gun control over a long period of time.

Your point about knives, staffs, whips etc. is a good one, but the point about guns is that they are not just 'weapons', but 'lethal and easily used weapons'. Try holding up a bank with a whip.

Obviously your slaughter of clay pigeons does make you a dangerous madman, but we'll overlook that for now. The issue here is not whether any guns anywhere exist. I wouldn't suggest that the police and armed forces not be allowed any. Likewise, for use in a sport or pastime, fair enough. But that doesn't mean that any idiot who like loud noises should be able to buy a firearm, take it home and keep it under his pillow.

What I was taking issue with is the view that it is someones 'right' to own lethal weapons, and controlling them is an affront to their 'freedom'. Or do you totally agree with the earlier views about gun control in this thread?

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
nope. i completely agree with what you just said.

i tried holding up a bank with a whip once. it would have worked too if i'd remembered to change out of the gimp suit and removed the gag first...

the argument about guns being 'lethal and easily used weapons' is the best argument there is against them i think.
its like a bus can be used to kill lots of people at once too (but its much more tricky to conceal a bus in your jacket).
the point is, because guns were originally designed to kill people, they're very, very good at doing just that so if you're a nutter who decides he wants to kill lots of people (and you're not absolutely insane) you'll choose the best tool for the job - a gun.

and so we come to the crux of the matter - how do you stop the wrong people getting access to these weapons without penalising the majority who want to use them for sport?

i'm upset about the ban situation in the uk but not solely because i am thus further limited by my governments decisions (they don't like me smoking weed either) - the reason there is a handgun ban in this country is not because of how dangerous they are or the amount of crime thats directly related to them but because the police were incompetent in the area of granting and reviewing firearms licenses. so instead of fixing it, they just took them away

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
Why not use lasers for gun sports?
They're more accurate, and you can't do people any damage unless you get them right in the eye.
Aesthetic concerns like noise, recoil etc could be added for those that want it.

Alternatively keep guns under lock and key at the range where they're used. That was how the rifles were kept at my shooting range

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Posted: 10th Apr 2003
lasers take the challenge out unfortunately.

i tried laser clay pigeon shooting and its a bit crap - it just turns it into a moving indoor rifle target ie. lasers move at the speed of light whereas bullets move nearer the speed of sound so there is no adjustment needed for lead times on targets when you use a laser (which is the unique challenge in shooting moving targets).
even for static targets, lasers still less of a challenge - no wind resistance for example.

i'd agree keeping guns at a range is great but many clubs (including the one my family runs) do not have dedicated ranges or the money to buy the land for one - not to mention the resources to build a secure storage facility for a whole bunch of guns.

and what is better - secure storage of one or two guns in a home or a store of hundreds of weapons in the middle of the country, that is largely unattended...?

not to mention the fact that although we have 200+ members, they often shoot at 3 or 4 different clubs, visiting us maybe only once over a month.

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 11th Apr 2003
Well... maybe the Brits got a cool laser gun, but I have yet to see one and I work with guns for a living!

I have seen balistic reports of what happens when somebody is shot. All these pretty gun shot wounds you see of people getting shot in the stomach and leg are utter BS.

When a round enters the body, it does several things, fist off (if it hasnt already) it flatens out. Basically it goes from a pointed object to something that more closly resembles your dinner plate!

Depending on the type of round it could tumble. Meaning it bounces around off of solid objects like ribs and other bones. Some may just punch strait through.

It also has a very nasty shock wave. The force that the round has when it impacts your body pushes things around, especially soft tissues like vital organs. You can get shot in the stomach and flaten your heart to the point that it can no longer pump blood.

Now there are alot of facters to consider here, like; type of round, muzzel velocity, caliber of round, size of person being shot, things like that.

Gun controle is needed, but there is to be a very fine line walked between making things safe for the public and taking away first amendment rights.

It is a hard thing to do, but it can be done.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 11th Apr 2003

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymund P.:
Well... maybe the Brits got a cool laser gun, but I have yet to see one and I work with guns for a living!

---

the one i used was an infra red one mounted in a shotgun.
crap.
same class as the lasers used in the lasertag games we've all had a go at and been disappointed by.

the reason you haven't seen any lasers as a marine ray is because they are banned under the geneva convention.
they don't kill people like guns do, they injure on a massive scale.
one class 4 x-ray laser will blind a whole lot of people from a long, long way off.
if you fire one at a wall, without eye protection, the reflection will still blind you.
and talking of eye protection, you can't produce goggles that are usable as the frequency ranges the lasers can operate at means if you make protective goggles to shield your eyes from all of those frequencies, you wouldn't be able to see anything through them anyway!

i'll admit star-trek style phasers are still a way off yet

"i see you at 'dis cafe.
i come to 'dis cafe quite a lot myself.
they do porridge."
- tim westwood

Posted: 11th Apr 2003
There was a laser missile defense thing the Pentagon released some information about last year. There was footage of it, but it wasn't very interesting. A shot of a missile in the air suddenly blowing up.

It was still pretty impressive, until I heard afterwards that it also required the missiles to be fitted with special laser activated detonators

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."

Posted: 11th Apr 2003
The second amendment isn't about sports or target practice or clay pidgeons.

I don't own guns so that I can hunt or shoot at targets. I own guns so that if some criminal wants to kill me or my family, he just made a big mistake.

You can make all the gun laws you want, criminals will still have guns, in fact, in the UK, Criminals are the ONLY citizens with handguns. You want proof? take a look around you. The law abiding citizens gave up their guns when it was required of them. Now the criminals have nothing to fear. They can break into your house knowing that you won't be able to stop them. They can kill with impunity, because the only people who can stop them are the overworked police. And they will be long gone by the time the police get there.

Maybe you can just call the police, and maybe they will show up....two minutes after you are dead or an hour after you are dead, it doesn't matter. Half the people in america live in the rural areas, places where you would be lucky for a cop to respond within an hour, even if he COULD find your house.

Banning guns leads to an increase in crime, because suddenly the criminals have a lot less to worry about. (they were already worried about the police, so that doesn't count) You can debate this all you want, but the facts don' lie.

Every state in america that has passed a law (Shall issue concealed carry permit) allowing the "law abiding citizens" (people without criminal records) to start carrying concealed handguns, has shown a dramatic DECREASE in violent crime. The first was florida. Their crime rate dropped 85% in the first year.

Suddenly the criminals don't know who has the guns. They are a lot more hesitant to try and hurt somebody, because they know they could die. (police usually don't shoot to kill, just wound) Suddenly the police are not the only people who can stop the violent criminals.

You can watch the pattern yourself. #1 crime is committed #2politician calls for gun control to stop this #3the crimes keep happening #4politician calls for more gun control #5crime keeps happening #6politican says..."see, it isn't working yet, because we haven't banned enough guns" #7ban all guns, "that will solve the problem"

now only the cops and the criminals have guns.

or "let the good people arm themselve" ==>crime goes away because the criminals are OUTNUMBERED

the little old ladies and pretty younge women are defenceless before muscled up rapists and muggers and murderers who don't even need guns to do harm.

(the primary reason guns ARE good: because they make a grandmother equal to a brutal street thug)

I live in a "shall issue" state. To carry, you must pass a safety course, and learn the laws, and pass a written exam. You have to pass local and national criminal background checks. and you have to pay money. But, if you are not a criminal, you SHALL be aproved. you can't carry in bars, you can't carry when you are drunk, you can't carry on government property or in schools. You can't shoot somebody unless they are about to kill you are a member of your family.

But now the criminals are the ones who live in fear. Isn't that better than the innocent people living in fear?

Gore would have called for just as many bad laws that take away our freedoms and put us under the survailence of "big brother" plus he would have tried to take away our guns.

YOu think the taliban and Al-Qaeda can invade the USA? Even if our military was non-existent, we still have an "army" of 50,000,000 gun owners. If the taliban dropped in parachutes. outnumbering the local police force ten to one, the taliban would be outnumbered 100 to one by the citizens with guns.

Our right to own guns ENFORCES all the other rights. If you don't belive me, look at Iraq, and Nazi Germany.

we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!

Posted: 11th Apr 2003
https://www.newswithviews.com/patriot/patriotism6.htm

I feel sorry for this poor brit that got sent to prison for life, just because he protected himself from murderouse thugs, in his own home.

we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!

Posted: 11th Apr 2003
How many brits in this thread smoke weed? How many know people who smoke weed? Tons of weed are comeing into your country and the police can't stop it (I realize it's been deriminalized, but before that in the height of the drug war it was still comeing in by the ton) So if criminals can smuggle in drugs which can be sniffed out by dogs they can smuggle in guns a lot easier which dogs can't even sniff for. They do smuggle in guns to. Not in the same numbers because there isn't the same market but guns are still comeing into the country. So I would say it is hopeless to try to keep them out of the country.


I also don't believe guns really have that much of a impact on crime rates. Canada has just as many guns as the united states (per capita) but we have a dramatically lower crime rate.

you can look at countries which have mandatory military service. They have like a 90% gun ownership rate or something because everyone is required to be in the military and they are all issued assault rifles. I don't know if any of these countries have bad crime rates.

On the other end of the spectrum I remember a janitor in a school somewheres who killed like 12 people with a knife rampage.

Anyways santana when you go to bars do they have lockers to put guns into?

Also raymund I read a FBI study on hollowtip bullets (the ones that supposedly flatten out into the shape of a dinner plate) and they found that they very rarely do that. even a heavy t-shirt is capable of clogging the hollow point of the bullet causing it to behave like any other bullet. The FBI looked at coroner reports of gun shot victims, they talked to medical experts and shot cadaver pigs with hollow point bullets and found they aren't all they are cracked up to be. But they added they don't really have any properties that make them worse then a regular non-jacketed bullet and the hollowtip gives it a lower penetration through walls and stuff which is good for police so they don't kill innocent people when shooting at criminals.

The FBI won't use them because they can't shoot through an average car door which is their requirement for ammunition.

Posted: 12th Apr 2003

quote:

---

I dont think Reagen was out to bring the end of the world, I would be willing to bet that he just thought that the second comming would happen in his lifetime. Thats cool, he can think that no matter what his position in life is. It has no bearing on his mental health. It is called religion. Yes even the President can have faith in his religion

---

I am kind of fuzzy of the date that Reagan said that, it may have been after his second term was up, but the fact is he said it and most likely held that belief for a long time previous to that. It makes me very nervous when world leaders say things like that and go about screwing around with the middle east. It is possible that things would not be nearly as bad in the middle east had we not unseated the democraticly elected, though prodominately Muslim, government of Iran back in the day. Of course had we not put the northern alliance in power in an attempt to push Russia into their own little Vietnam, Afghanistan might not have been such a pain in the ass either.

And, just for the record, I never meant to imply that it was wrong for a world leader to have faith in his/her religion. Of course it is going to color their view of life, and should have a profound affect on their personal conduct, But I don't think "initiatives" of any faith should be declared national policy, particularly in a nation of so many diffirent faiths.

Maybe I'm alone in this, but I have always thought that the government should be run with logic, careful planning, and common sense, rather than by the lines of a book that most of the people who follow it don't understand, and may or maynot be legitimate anyway.

Jesus helps me trick people.

Posted: 15th Apr 2003
Astar, No, they don't have locker, you can't go to a bar AT ALL if you have a gun, unless you are a cop. You can't drink alcohol and carry a gun. You also can't drink and drive.

Hollowpoints. These are not "kop killa" bullets. They penetrate car doors and walls the same. They do not perform correctly at least half the time, but they do mushroom consistently if you have the right bullet and the right target. the FBIO stoppe using 9mm, they use 10mm instead.

The bullets you are thinking of are called "frangible" they shatter when they hit anything, and they will not penetate dangerousely through any barrier. even thin walls and car doors.

Hollowpoints tend to penetrate people less, that is why cops use them (no innocent bystander deaths) they are also more deadly.

Frangible bullets are normally only used by civilians at home who live in crowded neighborhoods, or by air marshals on airplanes (so they don't hurt the plane with a missplaced round)

we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!

Posted: 15th Apr 2003
The reason the USA has such a bad violent crime rate is because the government sends marijuana smokers and crack heads to prison, and lets rapists and murderers free, so they have more room for drug dealers.

In other words, they let the violent people (people that hurt other people) free so they have more room to lock up people who are only hurting themselves.

Then they try and ban guns to reduce violent crime.... HOW ABOUT LOCKING UP VIOLENT CRIMINALS?!?!?!

well, in the last few years, the public has demanded CORRECT action, not just any action. now, violent criminals who use guns to commit crimes are locked up for life and law abiding citizens are being allowed to carry guns, and "magicaly" the crime rate is going down...rapidly.

coincidence?

we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!

Posted: 15th Apr 2003
Has anyone watched Mike Moores "Bowling for Columbine" or read any of his books ie "Stupid White Men" Very good read and a different opinion is always good to broaden your thoughts on matters.

I am the guy running around with his hair on fire!!

Posted: 15th Apr 2003
Having a political leader express faith is not the problem. Having a political leader who actually says with a vacant look on his face that God placed him in office sounds a little bit like the ravings of a fanatic.

I don't care what religion/code/creed/group you are....fanatics are not rational people given to clear thinking.

Raph

Posted: 15th Apr 2003
Hehe, that footage is about as old as I am Simian

My dad used to write history for the US Air Force, he told me about that project.

Basically what the laser did was super heat the targeting computer, and fry the SOB. They then added a bit of C-4 to make it blow up for the brass hehe


Ohh and I love your Sig hahahahahaha


DJ Dantana, what is your definition of hand gun, or in this case the Brittish definition. In the US a hand gun would be a pistol. Personally if someone shot a shotgun at me and missed (not likly but for sake of agument they missed) I would piss my pants alot faster than if somone shot a pistol at me. any hoo


See your theory about the good with guns out numbering the bad with guns is good and all, but if you lay down that theory, you have to add that the good may be less hesitant to use their guns lest they be considered bad.

The greatest power in the world, is to be able to take a life, and then dont.

Astar, guns can be sniffed for. Ever hear of balistic residue? Basically like the film around your bong bowl, carbon and gun powder still sit on a gun. I am sorry but you can not clean a weapon good enough to get the carbon off of it.

Now a brand spanking new weapon that has never been fired, including the test fire at the factory, will slip through but a fired weapon wont.

Actually take a look at at a decent caliber round after it has been fired, the amount of pounding that brass takes from air alone is enough to misshape the round. Also a hollow point opens up due to air pressure as well, not nessicerily flesh.

Bullets are designed to kill, not much else. There are always exceptions, like the hard packed powder metal bullet that discintigrates when it hits a hard object, and a few others.


Sickpuppy, it doesnt matter what he said, he is allowed to speek on his faith!! It isnt a crime and it should give you a warm fuzzy knowing that a leader has faith in something other than him or her self.

The right to declair your religion publicly is just that, a right! You cand deny someone a right because they are the President!!


Who said he was running the country based on

quote:

---

rather than by the lines of a book

---

?


DJ Dantana, why dont we just shoot the crack heads and pot smokers, that way we would have more room for the violent ciminals?? just kidding

The measure of a societies ciminals is the measure of a society.


I have read Stupid White Men, and though it may suprise you to hear, I enjoyed it and thought it had quite alot of truth in it. However, I will never read or watch any Mike Moore production ever again. There is no room for political statments when accepting an award. I am sorry he pissed me off when he did that. I dont care if it was for a political movie or not, there is no place for it.


Raph, who are you to say that God didnt place him in that office? If you dont believe it, that is fine but you dont have to bash him for believing it.

Ghandi was a fanatic, so was Dr. King Amazing how we hold these two men with such high esteem.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 15th Apr 2003
A correction to DJ Dantana's most recent post:

A drug dealer is not someone who is merely "hurting themself," as you say. They hurt every man woman and child who they sell to. What they do could also be construed as attempted murder in many cases. Their products destroy communities, not just individuals. A violent criminal on the other hand tends to affect a small number of people in his actions... the possible exception being gang violence but even then it's not as bad as dealing drugs.

And being caught with drugs isn't typically dealt with as harshly as being caught with intent to sell, or during a deal, etc, so you're somewhat wrong in saying they "lock up drug users/dealers and let out the violent criminals" in a context that suggests they'll toss a guy in for smoking one joint and let out a multi-homicide rapist type guy.

What hits the fan is not evenly distributed.

Posted: 16th Apr 2003
This is going to take a while, so I'll categorize it and go in order.

Raphael96: If Bush realy belives it and isn't just playng the public opinion, then yes, it is ok (even good) for him to belive in something. Hopefully though, it isn't one of those "self fuffiling end-of-the-world prophesys" (like David Koresh, branch dividians, Waco Texas) as we have read mention to. Or some undescribable greed for power. Kick my Butt for saying it...but I DO belive in God. While my belifes may not EXACTLY match any other persons in the world, we are entitled to our belifes, and if that belife (or God)leads a person to do the right thing, then it is all good. Unfortunatly there are many many people in power whoses main belife is...in their own greed. Let us hope Bush isn't one of those people.


Ray: I like the laser they put in the 747 jumbo jet, shoot down a ICBM at a range of 300 miles, can you say....COOL!!!

Handgun---->the gun you have in your pocket when you and your girlfriend get assaulted by violent criminals during a night on the town...as opposed to the shotgun that is sitting in your gun safe at your house when you and your girlfriend get assaulted by violent criminals during a night on the town.

Your Theory: It sounds good. I have been shot at (two separate occations, and I almost got knifed another time), one of those times I had a gun with me, and I did not attempt to return fire. Although I got so angry about being shot at I probably would have if I knew exactly where is was comming from. However, I wasn't about to stick my head up and go looking for the drunk with the high power rifle. And after surviving those experiences I am glad I didn't need to hurt anybody. Given a choice, I would deffinitly not want to hurt another living being (human or otherwise), no matter what they are trying to do. I value life, and I am a peaceful person. Thus you point is valid, a good person will be very inhibited when it comes to taking a life. However, emminint threat of death to ones own life (or the life of a loved one) is a powerful inhibition reducer...trust me.

What is funny though, is that none of those times was I actually looking for trouble, or doing anything illegal, but trouble found me none the less.

Bullets: unless you are using ultra high velocity ammo (5000 fps or faster, like a rail gun or a 30 BMG) there will not be bullet deformation due to wind resistance, most of the dammage comes from impact with the target (even sand or water will deform lead bullets, but it takes a little more to hurt FMJs). I have even recovered FMJs (full metal jacket) that could be reloaded, after being shot into water.

Frangibles can be quite deadly to the target. just not to anything else behind the target. Personaly I think they are one of the most inhumane designs ever, one can never remove all the pieces. Although, I suppose if you are shooting someone you probably don't care to much about their recovery afterwards....


The measure of the way a society treats the elderly and disabled is also a measure of the society.

Dio: That is not a correction, that is a point of view. A relatively flawed one at that. You are saying that a drug dealer is worse than a rapist or murderer?

Drug dealers hurt (primarily) themselves and the people who are wanting to smoke crack, eta al... If a drug dealer is selling drugs (key word SELLING) they are providing a service (commerce)for which there is a demand. The primary effect of a drug dealer is to give people what they want. There are some sick minded dealers that target children (trying to get them addicted), however, statisticaly speaking, most drug dealers are only selling drugs to people who already want them. The risk in any other adventure (school children) is just to high.

I am not advocating being a drug dealer, I am just bringing to attention the fact that a drug dealer primarily SERVES a portion of the population (look around you...[unfortunatly] a very large part of the population.) They are in effect providing a service to people who want it.

Murderers and rapists are doing nothing but harm other people. They do not provide a service. Nobody pays money for a murderer to kill them. Murderer pick victims at random. A victim has no choice in the matter.

An addict truely can "just say no".

A rape victim doesn't have that opportunity. A dead man doesn't have that opportunity. A murderer leaves a child without a parent. Drugs can do the same, but not nearly as often. And unless the drug is strongly addictive and powerful and readily accessible, the only way a child will loose a parent is through due proccess of law.

Drug dealers don't hurt every man woman and child that they sell to, those people are hurting themselves. It isn't like the drug dealer is FORCE FEEDING it to them...!?!?!

Murders aren't bad for a community?

A violent criminal causes a chain of events, often leading to the direct severing of a chain of life, an end to a genetic line, with repercutions to all the family members of the deceased and all the future husbands and wives of the raped.


And to quote you directly "And being caught with drugs isn't typically dealt with as harshly as being caught with intent to sell, or during a deal, etc, so you're somewhat wrong in saying they "lock up drug users/dealers and let out the violent criminals" in a context that suggests they'll toss a guy in for smoking one joint and let out a multi-homicide rapist type guy"

I agree, yes that sounds absurd, but IT DOES HAPPEN, quite often in fact. And generaly the guy that got caught with the joint gets out and lights up another joint. The guy that got caught with the rape, gets out and rapes again (ruins another life, not just their own). Crazy things DO happen, thanks to silly laws. Like the guy in the above link I posted, he got life in prison for defending himself against violent criminals.
His actions would have been totaly leagal in this state.

What ever happened to English Common Law? Magna Carta? did they just toss it out like they are doing our own constitution here in the USA?Through enough laws...dont' repeal it directly, just make it obsolete?

we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!

Posted: 16th Apr 2003
Fortunately our lawmaker are recently begining to see the stupidity of those laws (lock up the pot heads, set free the killers/murderes/armed robbers) but change doesn't happen over night, and there are a lot of states that haven't seen the error of our ways.


P.S. did you know that USA has more people locked up in prison than Red China? (absolute number, NOT per capita) a substantial number of those people are in prison for...you guessed it...Marijuana....

we eat and we drink and we smoke and we try!

Posted: 16th Apr 2003
Ya but the US has more freedomes than Red China. Not to mention the fact that we dont shoot people in the streets for disagreeing with the government.

Drugs do more harm than most think, while yes very few high people do things like shoot up the neighbors house and go drive at incredible speed, they do hurt their families and friends.

Have you ever watched someone slip away due to a drug addiction? I mean thats gotta hurt. Imagine if it were your son or daughter.

Drugs hurt more than just the user.

Some Jarhead last night: "this dumb a$$ thinks hes fireproof"

Posted: 16th Apr 2003
I always thought the point of Americans having the right to bear arms was so that the people could rise up and overthrow an unjust or undemocratic government, in the same way that they overthrew the British
It doesn't seem worth putting the right to bear arms in the Constitution if the only reason is to defend yourself against other people with the right to bear arms.
But I know as much about the constitution as the average aardvark knows about Japanese sports cars.

I'm interested; do any of you guys carry a gun with you for self-defense as a matter of routine? Thats the impression i get reading Dantana's post. I never heard of anyone ever carrying a gun for self defense in the UK, and find the idea quite alien.

Oh and I thought you'd appreciate the sig Ray

"Switching between different kinds of chuu chuu sometimes gives this "urgh wtf?" effect because it's giving people the phi phenomenon."