• All Purchases made this month instantly go into the draw to win a USD $ 100.00 credit to your HoP account.
 
Page: 1...56789...11
Posted:eek eek eek eek eek eek

Tragic Loss of Life

This [censored] really saddens me. My thoughts go out to the victims, survivors and all their families.


Delete Topic

biggins
SILVER Member since Sep 2002

biggins

member
Location: In Bed

Total posts: 165
Posted: Written by: Lurch


but yet again no one wants to answer the question as to why STABLE law abiding citizens should be prohibited from having them if they choose to?



no one is questioning the right of a stable law abiding citizen from having a gun if they want to that is your right as an american citizen. i think a few are questioning the reasons behind wanting/needing to own a gun.


Wielding a Wooden Spoon

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Lurch


......but yet again no one wants to answer the question as to why STABLE law abiding citizens should be prohibited from having them if they choose to?



Most here aren't necessarily saying that 'STABLE law abiding citizens should be prohibited from having them if they choose to'

though some would argue that the difficulty of differentiating 'STABLE law abiding citizens' from potentially unstable/non-law abiding citizens is one reason.

Personally, i feel a more practical approach is tighter checks where it has to be proven that the applicant is indeed a 'STABLE law abiding citizens'.


"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!

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: Lurch



Does my shotgun change from a hunting/sport gun to a murdering baby killing boom stick simply because it's got a black stock on it?



Perhaps you should at least acknowledge that many gun murders are by guns in the hands of those who see guns as cool, rather than practical.

examples being those influenced by hip-hip gangster culture which are boosting gun incidents in the UK.

That may get you understanding of why an, otherwise identical gun, with a black stock (or any other cosmetic variation that can be interpreted as 'cool' or identifying the weapon with a desirable gendre, would be legislated against.

As someone who seems to be focusing on the practical uses of guns, would you agree that measures which leave alone practical guns aspects, whilst restricting their aesthetic appeal as much as possible, are a good idea?

(on the grounds that people can still use guns for practical purposes (hunting, self-defence etc) yet they will be less appealing to wannabe gangsters).


"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!

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:Dave, do you mean like a law stating that all new guns made, MUST be day-glo pink for example?



The image of a ganster with a bright pink gun is one I like smile



Side note: "hip-hip gangster culture" - You sound like my dad (no offence meant, my dad is fantastic smile ), and him telling me to "Take a cool tablet" ubblol (he meant to say a chill pill biggrin )

EDITED_BY: UnbearablyColdOrFreezing (1177335204)


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Sorry, that should of course have been 'hip-hop ganster culture' smile



Day-glo pink guns would, IMO, only add to the problem.


"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!

Delete

UCOF
SILVER Member since Apr 2002

UCOF

Carpal \'Tunnel


Total posts: 15414
Posted:smile Twas an amusing mistake smile hug



How would having a pink gun increase the problem? Surely having a bright pink gun would only decrease its appeal. My thinking goes like this: Pink = (IMHO/ is related to) Gay. Hip-hop (more specifically gangsta rap) = homophobic. Thus, make guns gay, their appeal would decrease in that the Hiphopsters wouldnt want to be seen as gay.



umm



Or am I just deluded? umm



Then again, having them pink would draw more attention to them perhps.. so really.. black is the only colour. What was the question again? biggrin



How else could you restrict their aesthetic appeal? Or rather than aesthetic (the actual physical appearance of the gun itself), do you mean make the whole gun culture less appealing?

EDITED_BY: UnbearablyColdOrFreezing (1177336785)


Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted:Bright Pink things are often very popular- punk hair colours etc.



Certainly if you presented a primary school class with two sub-machine guns- one normal and one bright pink, I think many would prefer the pink one.



In reality though, I was speaking tongue-in-cheek.



If it could be demonstrated that making all guns pink would lower their 'cool' appeal, I'd be all for legislation making all guns pink.



 Written by:



How else could you restrict their aesthetic appeal? Or rather than aesthetic (the actual physical appearance of the gun itself), do you mean make the whole gun culture less appealing?







I think it's already being done to an extent in the US- certain types of stock and grips are now illegal and it often seems to be the stuff that makes a, otherwise standard/practical looking, gun look more like a military weapon.



Recently looking on a US gun forum I noticed a thread alerting that more such measures were being planned and encouraging members to complain to their govt representiatives.



Stone said-



 Written by:



Real men don't need guns



Guns are for wimps







It may sound simplistic but, I think that ultimately that's the kind of message we need to encourage, to replace the current 'guns are cool/empowering etc.



****EDIT****



On reflection, let me apologise in advance for that last part- obviously on this thread there are sincere and responsible US gun owners who will find it a insulting generalisation.



I'm coming at this issue as a UK-er where guns are full-stop illegal for civilians (even most police aren't armed).



A country where one of the biggest gun problems is with inner-city youths from deprived areas, into gang culture.



That is where the message 'guns are for losers', in that context (a nation where guns are illegal) is, IMO, appropriate.

EDITED_BY: onewheeldave (1177349705)


"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!

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Woo some decent replies. Forgive me for being slow it's a number of you against about 3 of us, I have a lot of catching up to do wink



 Written by:


Lurch, you've overlooked many major points while focusing in on minor details and calling people fools for not being able to positively id a rifle from memory etc etc...shall I point out that no-one in this thread has labeled a pro-gunner an idiot or a fool, however it might be appropriate when people use 'evidence' based on fantasy (cho could have hijacked a plane or used Anthrax) and cant even seem to follow an argument based on logic and evidence or even a bit of historical support.



First off, I never called anyone a fool, I said you were looking foolish by using the wrong terminology. It's not just a small mundane detail, it would be like discussing spinning and having someone constantly get mixed up between butterflies and weaves :P

 Written by:

Pineapple Pete's table is telling - why is it that the US has approx 10 times the gun deaths of Oz (0.027 per 1000 vs 0.0029), and 30 times the gun deaths of UK per capita?

What is so different about the US that the evidence thats been presented over and over based on experiences in the rest of the world is invalid?



That is the question, television and the media promote violence far more than the gun community. If you look anywhere towards shooting groups everyone is extremely safe and demands likewise from their members. Someone mentioned earlier that the 'bad guys' could simply go to the shooting range which is not so. While legally there is nothing stopping them from being there, if they do not show proper gun safety they will be kicked out. The ACTUAL gun community is full of very nice, law abiding citizens, who love their hobby, and treat it with the utmost respect.

The fact is that the media causes violence by showing so much on television. Is it our guns? No, countries with more guns are less violent than here. The number of guns does not determine the amount of violence. Plain and simple. I do believe that our culture plays a role and we have a duty to correct this for our children. Violent crime is going up everywhere, not just here, according to InterPol on aggrivated assault:

US 1957-00 5x increase
Canada 1962-00 4x
Norway/Greece 1977-99 5x
Australia/NZ 1977-99 4x
Sweden/Austria/France 1977-99 3x
Most other European nationes 1977-99 2x

You remove television, crime goes down. You remove guns, crime stays pretty much even, or goes up.

 Written by:

I reckon no-one should have access to a Tek-9 (yeah I looked up Wikipedia on the columbine massacre) apart from perhaps SWAT or military - but I guess being able to get guns like that is what your forefathers were thinking of when they wrote that 'freedom' into the constitution?



No walmart sells a tek9. If it is decomissioned to semi auto, what makes that gun any different from any other semi auto pistol? There are a couple differences that I wouldn't mind getting rid of, but overall it's exactly the same other than cosmetics. I don't think banning weapons because they look 'mean' is the right answer at all.

 Written by:

What purpose do handguns have apart from killling or potentially killing people? sport? fine. leave em at the firing range then - thats what we do in Australia - its a hell of a lot more secure than people taking em home and leaving them in the car when they pick up the groceries...



Most people who carry have their gun on them whenever they're out of the house. It's not in a car, or off their person, it is on their hip. What purpose do guns have? How about protecting the good people from the bad people? You have to be able to seperate righteous shoots from crime. Are you worried about killing the badguy?

 Written by:

But now we are getting to it. The bit i've kind of been trying to work towards for a while. As someone said earlier (i think), guns are a symptom, so what is the illness? What are the root causes that drive these people to become armed and violent? What has driven them to be in this position and hence drive others to feel the need have guns in order to defend themselves. Is it films, music the media? Is it poverty, desperation what is it? Why? Please explain. And if things are so bad and people are so desperate that they need to have guns why is nothing being done about their situation.



As I said earlier, media is a large factor in violence IMO. Poverty another. Poverty level is the single biggest indicator for crime. The people at or below the poverty line are more likely to commit crime, plain and simple, they have more to gain and less to lose. It's a sad state of affairs, and guns are a symptom, but if that symptom helps the good people, or makes them feel better, why go after that when it's painfully obvious that it will have little to no effect on the people you're trying to change?

 Written by:

maybe i'm reading these wrong but to me all these quotes seem to be saying that in order for a populace to be empowered they have to be armed. This i do not agree with. Empowerment of a peoples can come from many other places and historically great change has been brought about in many different countries through strong leadership and a willingness to change.



Agreed, empowerment can be found many places, the abuses that can be dolled out to an unarmed populace are horrific though. Governments have killed more people that individual crimes could ever manage. Look what Germany could do. That is an entirely different gun argument however.

 Written by:

Im saying guns are a symptom of a larger problem. Try reading the above link to article called "A look inside America's gun culture." Ive posted it twice. For sure, there is a bit of Rambo America behind all this violence. Have a read about the American Gun Culture, and you will see where Im coming from. Anyhow, the quotes are by Professor Gasper, an eminent professor of sociology at Johns Hopkins University.


 Written by:

* They share a belief that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution enumerates an individual right. Generally they see people as trustworthy and believe that others should not be prevented from having guns unless they have proven otherwise.
* They share a belief that guns provide some level of protection against criminality and tyranny. This ranges from a feeling that it's good to have a gun around the house for self-protection, to an active distrust of government and a belief that widespread gun ownership is protection against tyranny.
* They are generally responsible with respect to firearms handling. They have an awareness (or internalization) of either Jeff Cooper's Four Rules [1] or the NRA's Three Rules [2], providing for some level of safe handling of guns and try to abide by them when handling firearms.
* They are shooting enthusiasts. Few members of the gun culture do not practice shooting on a regular basis.
* Gun rights associated with hunting and other outdoor sportsmen activities are widely supported in principle, although these activities are not always practiced by all within the gun culture.




Out of curiosity which of those do you have a problem with?

 Written by:

The challenge and opportunity is to stop living in the past. Create a new future, a future without guns and associated violence. After all, its 2007 not Virginia 1607, and the role of guns in society has change. Do you really need a gun?



Stop living in the past? the world has gotten many more times more violent since the 1600s. It's not because of a proliferation of weapons. Do I really need a gun? probably not. I could drop working for law enforcement, give up on my community and keep to myself and probably be just fine. As I've said before, I've never used my gun on someone, never even considered it. I've never been put in a situation where I need it. Have you ever used the airbag in your car though? would you remove it just because you don't need it?

 Written by:

However, to answer your question, you dont need a gun. Its a myth, this "I need to gun to protect my family" because the reality is that the guns for protection are frequently used against family members. Ask the cops.



I have, it's not true. Guns that are used against the family is a pointless statistic, if your brother wanted to kill you while you slept, it would not be difficult no matter what weapon he chose. If you're referring to guns being take from the home owner and used against them, there are very very very very very few cases of such, and if you could i'd love to see some examples.

 Written by:

no one is questioning the right of a stable law abiding citizen from having a gun if they want to that is your right as an american citizen. i think a few are questioning the reasons behind wanting/needing to own a gun.



Should I have to have a reason? This goes back to the American mentality, I should be able to do whatever I want with my money and time so long as it doesn't interfere with or hurt other people. My weapons have done nothing to harm anyone, I shouldn't have to justify them to anyone, do you have to justify yourself when you buy alcohol?

 Written by:


As someone who seems to be focusing on the practical uses of guns, would you agree that measures which leave alone practical guns aspects, whilst restricting their aesthetic appeal as much as possible, are a good idea?



I think banning guns based on their looks is a poor argument. How about banning red cars because they are statistically more likely to speed and thus get in an accident? Black and otherwise colored guns do have practical purposes in hunting, and there are capacity limits.

 Written by:

I think it's already being done to an extent in the US- certain types of stock and grips are now illegal and it often seems to be the stuff that makes a, otherwise standard/practical looking, gun look more like a military weapon.

Recently looking on a US gun forum I noticed a thread alerting that more such measures were being planned and encouraging members to complain to their govt representatives.



That was a Clinton "assault weapons" ban, which was a farce (and ended a few years ago). To claim that a weapon is more deadly because it has a folding/collapsible stock, or pistol grip is idiotic. Does your car get any faster with pretty chrome rims on it? These bans are not logical, nor intelligent, and that is why the 'gun culture' opposes them. No one says that unstable people should be allowed to have guns. Many of us would even gladly encourage restrictions in that aspect. But there is no logic behind calling one rifle an assault weapon, and another a hunting weapon purely on aesthetic values when nothing has changed mechanically.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:Wait there is gun violence in the UK, I thought if you outlawed guns, then no one would have them.
The grips being outlawed was, I thought, because they made getting prints difficult.
Different styles of rifles and shotguns is like a different style of car. Some have different functions, some are different prices.
Kmart stopped selling guns.
Walmart does not have assault weapons.
Civilians, as I understand are not suppposed to own automatics. It may not seem like a big difference between semis and autos but it is.
People who own guns are not scarey, idiots who own guns are.
As for what should happen now is states should pass comprehensive mental evaluations and training laws to get license.
Why would we want guns? Because we live in a dangerous neighborhood. Because we work in bad areas. Because we have dangerous jobs. That's just off the top of my head...If you need more, I'm sure we could


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

Delete

GitasGuy


GitasGuy

Pooh-Bah
Location: Brisbane

Total posts: 2303
Posted: Written by: Lurch



Woo stats that are seven years old, those are helpful. No one is saying that the US can't be violent. Just as any country is. But correlation does not imply causation. Just because guns were involved with the crime does not mean that they were needed, nor their presence caused the crime to happen. We've all endorsed better education. We all know crime is a problem, that is not the question being asked here. We have all agreed on the same things, unstable people should not have access to firearms, but yet again no one wants to answer the question as to why STABLE law abiding citizens should be prohibited from having them if they choose to?





So what if the Stats are 7 years old. Do you really think your country has got better in the last 7 years or worse. Those stats don't include Columbine, The Armish Community shooting, this latest a Virginia Tech or NASA!!!! My God!!!



So how much does it take for a "stable" person to become "unstable". So was the guy who just shot 2 employers at NASA ealier this week, was he stable or unstable.... I'm guessing prior to shooting he would have been seen as stable.



I also read an article today about some "laguna beach actor" Jason Wahler has been photographed playing Russian Roulet with his Rapper buddy after getting really wasted. Now are these people stable.... I would say that society says yes until they see such photo's.



So if stable can so quickly become unstable then the sheer proliferation of guns makes it easier for them to do harm.


:admires giant wooden aeroplane: Its about time trees were good for something, instead of just standing their like jerks!!! ubblol ubbtickled

Homer rocks!!!! ubblol ubbrollsmile

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted:Ok I'm going to jump back in a little bit...I've been "listening" to the arguments the last few days but not replying because I haven't had the time (Lurch is right, there's a lot more of you to respond to than of us answering the other side of the debate) and the comments started getting a bit snide and I didn't want to throw in my own emotional snideness back. I refuse to participate in a discussion that isn't respectful. Which brings me to my first point.

It's frustrating being an American and having people from other countries telling me how to live my life, particularly because that's the part of being American I am not proud of...my government who does the same thing to other countries. That's why I haven't spoken up about it before because I know America has our history of bullying our viewpoints onto others and I respect a certain amount of latitude in the arguments relating to such. But I find it ironic that people are making snide statements about America being a bully and pushing our values on other countries, and in the very next breath is saying "America, when are you going to learn from us and just give up your guns?!" Double standard much? My government is not me and I am not my government. I didn't vote for Bush or for any other president who has been elected. I didn't and don't agree with sending our troops into Iraq and forcing them to become a democracy. I don't believe in pushing my values on ANYONE, whether they be my next door neighbor or the country next door. I don't make generalizations about each of you based on your country's government, please give me the same respect. I am glad the discussion has turned back towards generating healthy solutions rather than "just give up your guns already America!"

Yes the media is a major issue, but Lurch is right, the gun culture does not have its influence into that. Hollywood and the NRA are two different entities. The media and the gun culture do not share ideals. I don't think owning a gun makes me cool. I rarely let people know I own one and I certainly don't flaunt it around. I, like every gun owner I know, are extremely careful and stringent on gun safety. If my gun is not on my person, it's in my safe unloaded, and I keep my ammo separate from my firearm. I also keep a lockbox in my office in the case I do not keep my gun on me during appointments because I don't want to just leave it lying around or sitting at the bottom of my bag.

The reason I stress this, just as other "pro-gun" people have stressed, is that there is a huge difference between law-abiding citizens who chose to arm themselves and the people who commit crimes like the Virginia Tech or Columbine or NASA shootings. Speaking as a psychologist trained in evaluating mental health and stability, I can say from professional experiences that yes, some people "just snap" but it's actually very rare. With a trained eye, you can see the precursors to someone decompensating in their mental health. I can honestly say that I can make fairly accurate predictions on most people's mental health and stability.

Stone...you disagreed with the assumption that people who kill would do so with or without a gun. Do you honestly believe that a serial killer will no longer kill if their gun is taken away? I had a close friend when I was 12 who was killed by her father....he killed or attempted to kill his entire family in their sleep with a hammer. When the hammer broke, he found another weapon to finish the job. If someone is intent on killing, I don't think the type of weapon available to them is going to stop them. Yes, the availability of guns may make it easier, but as I said before, it's a symptom of a larger problem but not the problem itself. Taking away guns isn't going to solve that problem right now. IMO it will only make things worse (right now). Let's address those underlying issues, and once we've made headway on that, then I think we can move towards disarming the public.

Stone, you also said everyone in America thinks they need to arm themselves. Avoiding a sarcastic and snide remark, let me just say you're exaggerating. Much of America hates and fears guns and do not want to arm themselves. I'm not one to run around and find statistics (I'll leave that up to Lurch wink ), but out of all of my friends and family, I'd say less than 5% own a gun or are "pro-guns." Even my family dislikes the idea that I own one, but they support my reasons for doing so.

I'm sure I missed a lot of other things I wanted to respond to but this is it for now. tongue

btw...UCOF, you win the prize on making me laugh my ass off with your bright pink gun idea. biggrin Just the picture of it amuses me.


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**

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Is this what you guys want to see? wink


Non-Https Image Link


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Pyrolific
BRONZE Member since Jan 2001

Returning to a unique state of Equilibrium
Location: Adelaide, South Australia

Total posts: 3288
Posted:I must say Lurch - that while I dont agree with you, I have a lot of respect for how you have participated in this thread. I was expecting it to degenerate...

Pink gun - I'm speechless.

I never said the Tek-9 was available in WalMart! smile just questioned whether its a gun that any civilian really should be able to purchase *at all*. I would only differentiate between it and other semi-auto pistols (none of which I believe really need to be owned by civilians in any circumstance), because it can carry 50 rounds in a clip (from Wiki). That's absurd!

As for the decommissioned to semi-auto - I know of people that used to buy (when they were legal) semi-autos and convert them to full autos with a relatively small modification. Is this still possible with decommissioned guns like the Tek-9? I guess discussing full-auto vs semi-auto is a bit moot tho...

The difference between semi and full is with a full auto you can just hold your finger on the trigger and it repeats, with semi you have to pull the trigger each time to fire - right?

I dont see it as being such a huge difference (but then again I dont think there is a significant difference between butterfly and weave either - the illusion of which held back my spinning til I got over it wink).


--
Help! My personality got stuck in this signature machine and I cant get it out!

Delete

pineapple pete
SILVER Member since Sep 2004

pineapple pete

water based
Location: melbourne

Total posts: 5125
Posted:on the topic (i think) you rose in reguards to hollywood glamorising guncrime and the likes, hollywood is not isolated within america. the US, UK and Australia all screen (predominantly) the same box office and large scale movies, of which for the most part have, by and large, had a large part to do with hollywood. i therefore fail to see how a movie, say, Bad Boys II, could (significantly) influence gun crime in one country, but fail to do so in two others. do tell me if im somehow wrong though smile

hug


"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"

*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:UCOF, I think OWD might be coming from the Saturday night special end of town. Its fair comment, because it glorifies killing, like C walk perhaps. Pink handled revolver. Dunno, it probably has something to do with drugs. I suppose its a bit like them big shopping centres playing classical music to keep the hoods away wink

Woot Lurrch. Im sure the gun community is full of very nice, law-abiding citizens, who love their hobby, and treat it with the utmost respect. I just wish more people respected guns like you and your friends.

Unfortunate, we live in times when law-abiding citizens have to consider hanging hand up their guns. Not because they want to, but because it might set a good example. Perhaps, thats what it takes to bring law and order to the Wild West wink

From the shock jocks to Ramo, the media have been part of the process that has led to this sad situation. Though America, more than any other country, seems to be blinded by movies glorifying guns. One might say, caught up in its own propaganda.

Id like to see an explanation InterPols stats that suggesting t violent crime went up (1977-99 4x), in Australia.

Sure Im worried about killing a bad guy. Taking the law into your own hands make a person a vigilante, which is just another example of "frontier justice".

Id agree poverty level probably is the single biggest indicator for crime. Which to me, indicate something in Americas laissez-faire system is not working. In the short term, Id say it was another good reason to get guns out of the community.

As far as the Second Amendment goes, Id say I dont think the people who introduced the Second Amendment ever envisaged it being used to support "An America gun culture." The problem I have with the second amendment is that it was designed for a much different time than now. It also seems to put the rights of an individual, over the right of the community. In popular culture, Id say it encourages rogues like Rambo.

So Lurch if you are never put in a situation where you need a gun, why would you need one?

When I said its a myth, this "I need to gun to protect my family" because the reality is that the guns for protection are frequently used against family members. I was referring to domestic violence. The reason I said ask the cops was because theyre on the front line, and would have first hand knowledge of the misuse of guns in domestic situations.

faithinfire, perhaps outlawing gun in not the solution. What I dont understand about American Christians is why they would be so pro-guns. I grew up a Roman Catholic, and the Jesus I learnt about at school was kind and loving; a pacifist not a killer.

GitasGuy make an important point; its the sheer proliferation of guns in America that makes it easier for people to do harm to one another. And that is all we are saying.

pounce, when I said that people who kill would do so with or without a gun. I was talking about domestic violence, not serial killers. Unfortunately, there are too many situations like you describe, where whole families are slaughtered. And for sure there are underlying issues. I think that availability of guns may makes it easier, and removing guns would help reduce the number of people killed in many of these situations, though perhaps not he most extreme.

I was not being sarcastic when I said everyone in America thinks they need to arm themselves. No, thats the impression I get from the American responses in thread.

Well said Pyro,  Written by:

I dont see it as being such a huge difference (but then again I dont think there is a significant difference between butterfly and weave either - the illusion of which held back my spinning til I got over it



Its all and illusion, a story, a myth.

And for sure Lurch, much respect.

Dunno, pineapple pete, what about Mad MaX smile;)

Cheers smile


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

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:You don't see the difference between releasing a bunch of ammunition indiscriminately and pulling the trigger after each round...right umm
I do not own a gun. Only one of my friends do. He has rifles and pistols. When we went pheasant hunting, he wouldn't even let me help hold the rifle? when we were going through the mucky parts, because I am not familiar with the weapon and because I didn't have a license. Most gun owners are like him.
I've had a gun. I've slept with one under my pillow. It wasn't loaded but the people who were looking to hurt and/or kill me didn't know that. When I found our big kitchen knife I went for that instead. When I've had guns pointed at me, I've been able to talk my way out of it. I've had knives held on me in a domestic situation.
Being Roman Catholic, I do not promote killing. Even my college degree is to help quell violence. But the Bible also says the greatest love is to lay down one's life for another. In some of situations, one is protecting loved ones from those with not so good intentions.
Most guns lie in the right hands with responsible owners. And that is why the enforcement of present laws is important and a comprehensive licensing and reevaluation process is essential.


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

Delete

pineapple pete
SILVER Member since Sep 2004

pineapple pete

water based
Location: melbourne

Total posts: 5125
Posted:stone, im not much of the movie buff... as a matter of fact, my movie knowledge is quite lacking, so, i cant say ive seen it tongue

hug


"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"

*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Thanks guys, much respect to you as well, I'm surprised this hasn't degenerated more.


 Written by:

I never said the Tek-9 was available in WalMart! just questioned whether its a gun that any civilian really should be able to purchase *at all*. I would only differentiate between it and other semi-auto pistols (none of which I believe really need to be owned by civilians in any circumstance), because it can carry 50 rounds in a clip (from Wiki). That's absurd!



Part of the Clinton assault gun ban was limiting the number of rounds a gun could carry. But that too is pointless, you can obtain 'hi cap' magazines for most weapons, I even have a 20 round magazine for my pistol. There is no way you would carry it on you. For me, and for most people, it's purely for target reasons. It's just not very much fun when half your range session is spend reloading magazines. If I just wanted to shoot as possible though, reloading doesn't take all that much time. As can obviously be seen by Cho in the VT shootings, he *had* to reload at some point, but that didn't stop him.

 Written by:

The difference between semi and full is with a full auto you can just hold your finger on the trigger and it repeats, with semi you have to pull the trigger each time to fire - right?



I don't think it's a moot point, full auto guns are under far stricter guidelines. Insanely strict actually, since virtually no full-auto guns have been made in the US in the past 20 years that are available to the public. It costs many hundreds of dollars and hours of fingerprinting, background checks, and photo checks to verify and get a permit before you can even purchase the weapon, then you have to find one, and be able to afford the few thousand for that. There is a "transfer tax" of $200 for example. Meaning just for the act of buying something, you pay the government $200. As I've said before, no legally owned class 3 weapons have been used in a crime in the US.

 Written by:

on the topic (i think) you rose in reguards to hollywood glamorising guncrime and the likes, hollywood is not isolated within america. the US, UK and Australia all screen (predominantly) the same box office and large scale movies, of which for the most part have, by and large, had a large part to do with hollywood. i therefore fail to see how a movie, say, Bad Boys II, could (significantly) influence gun crime in one country, but fail to do so in two others. do tell me if im somehow wrong though



I do believe that hollywood has a part in violence, but moreso would be the media in general, both local and national. Ours tends to focus on negatives, bad stories about people being killed, hurt, injured, whatever you like. It's a sensational business, and young children are impressionable. I am an adult, I know the difference between fantasy and reality. I can differentiate between a movie, and my life, children cannot always do that.

Violence in the media is capable of having an indelible, negative impact on youth. Ralph Lewis writes that the mass media occupies a significant portion of time in the daily lives of Americans, and that a large proportion of television offerings portray violent, aggressive behavior. Recent surveys indicate that about 98 percent of American households have one or more televisions; the television is on about 28 hours a week for children 2 to 11 years of age and about 23 hours a week for teenagers. Research shows there are about five to six violent acts per hour on prime time and about 20 to 25 violent acts on Saturday morning children's programs. These violent acts account for about 188 hours of violent programming per week, or about 15 percent of all program time.

Mass media presentations that often glamorize violent acts, but rarely show their consequences, serve to normalize violence and desensitize our response to it. The underlying message is that violence is a legitimate strategy for solving problems. Dr. Delbert Elliott of The Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, concludes, "What is learned is not only how to do violence, but a desensitization to violence and rationalizations for disengaging one's moral obligations to others.'' There is also a pervasive problem in the way in which women are portrayed in all levels of the media. Sexist stereotypes of women as victims, as passive, as "enjoying" or even deserving of abuse-and sexist stereotypes of men as aggressive, unemotional, more intelligent and valued members of society who solve problems primarily by force-feed into a climate in which it is permissible to batter women.

Newscasts also do their share to feed the public's appetite for violence by glamorizing violent acts through repeated coverage and sensationalized headlines. Under the guise of the "public's right to know," gang warfare is glorified and inflamed by reported hits, and victims are exploited with questions about how they "feel" under such circumstances. Thus does society become desensitized and numbed by the barrage of violence paraded before us daily.


 Written by:

Woot Lurrch. Im sure the gun community is full of very nice, law-abiding citizens, who love their hobby, and treat it with the utmost respect. I just wish more people respected guns like you and your friends.



I agree, I wish more people were too, but how do we educate people? This did not used to be a problem 30 years ago, people grew up with guns, they were experienced, respected them, and understood them. There used to be shooting clubs in school, teaching safe shooting, hunters education etc. Now they're all banned. Making guns the 'bad' thing, which in turn glamorizes it to rebel youth. I would like to see those programs brought back. Going shooting is extremely enjoyable, and pretty much anyone can do it. There is a large amount of unwarrented fear over firearms because of the media hype.

 Written by:


Sure Im worried about killing a bad guy. Taking the law into your own hands make a person a vigilante, which is just another example of "frontier justice".



I wasn't talking about vigilantism. For me, if someone is expressly trying to kill me or a loved one, they have already forfeited their life. If they do not respect my life enough not to try and take it, I'm not going to show them that same kindness. I will not however, hunt someone down in revenge, for vigilante justice.

In my state (and some do vary) there are 3 things that have to be satisfied before you can legally shoot someone. There must be ability, opportunity, and intent. So they have to be able to do either grevious bodily harm, or kill me. Generally meaning they have to have a weapon of some sort, grossly outsize me, or out number me. If there is someone roughly my size, and unarmed, I cannot shoot them.

They have to have the opportunity to attack me. If they have a baseball bat or a knife, but they're across the street, they have no opportunity, they can not hurt me from there. That would again be a no shoot, you wouldn't even have a gun out in either of those situations.

And lastly they must have the intent. If I see someone walking down the street with a machete, I can't just off and shoot them, they have to express some intention of hurting me or someone else.

I also have a duty to retreat in my state. Meaning if I can run away, I have to. If they're faster than me, thats different. I'm not legally allowed to use deadly force against someone unless I cannot retreat. If someone kicks in my front door, I should go out the back. If I can't get out of the house without going through them then as long as the other 3 conditions are fullfilled, it's a righteous shoot. The only time you do not have a duty to retreat, is when you're protecting the life of a third party. If someone kicks in my house, and there is a child in the house too, I don't have to, and shouldn't, run away leaving the child in the house with the criminal.

 Written by:

Id agree poverty level probably is the single biggest indicator for crime. Which to me, indicate something in Americas laissez-faire system is not working. In the short term, Id say it was another good reason to get guns out of the community.



I don't agree, removing the legal guns from the community will do nothing to quell crime. Washington DC has some of the harshes gun laws in the nation. There are virtually NO private citizens with legal firearms, yet it has the highest murder rate. An American is more likely to be shot and killed in Washington DC than in Iraq. It's not because of easy access to guns, it's because of legal guns, and poverty that are rampent in the city.

 Written by:

As far as the Second Amendment goes, Id say I dont think the people who introduced the Second Amendment ever envisaged it being used to support "An America gun culture." The problem I have with the second amendment is that it was designed for a much different time than now. It also seems to put the rights of an individual, over the right of the community. In popular culture, Id say it encourages rogues like Rambo.



Nonsense.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington


CCW holders do not go and hunt people down, I see no encouragement for Rambo like behaviour. Anyone who's handled guns very often know that 95% of the stuff on tv isn't accurate anyways. I don't think the founding fathers would encourage any sort of idea that involved disarming the populace,

 Written by:


So Lurch if you are never put in a situation where you need a gun, why would you need one?



I've never needed an airbag or a seatbelt either :P I'd rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it.

 Written by:

When I said its a myth, this "I need to gun to protect my family" because the reality is that the guns for protection are frequently used against family members. I was referring to domestic violence. The reason I said ask the cops was because theyre on the front line, and would have first hand knowledge of the misuse of guns in domestic situations.



People who commit domestic abuse rarely commit it only once, if they have a conviction for it they cannot legally have a gun. It is sad that domestic abuse charges are usually dropped, and the abused go back to the abuser. In a domestic situation however, shooting someone is generally considered a crime of passion, and would have been done with a knife, or anything on hand. The gun did not cause the violent act in that case, it was just the tool used.

 Written by:

GitasGuy make an important point; its the sheer proliferation of guns in America that makes it easier for people to do harm to one another. And that is all we are saying.



Again, I'd have to disagree, it's a lack of education and community support.

 Written by:

faithinfire, perhaps outlawing gun in not the solution. What I dont understand about American Christians is why they would be so pro-guns. I grew up a Roman Catholic, and the Jesus I learnt about at school was kind and loving; a pacifist not a killer.



Now I'm not religious by any means, so I have to go to alternative sources for this stuff, but I'll present it anyways and you can respond if you like.

Some may point to Matthew 26: 52: "Put your sword back in its place,for all who draw the sword will die by the sword." The first point I make about this verse is that Peter, a private citizen and an apostle of Jesus, owned a sword. Secondly, Peter drew his sword at an inappropriate time. For Jesus to die on the cross for our sins and fulfill Old Testament prophecy, he had to first be arrested (which Peter was trying to prevent). Jesus also told Peter in the next verse that his actions were an affront to the deity (in much the same way that Uzzah offended God when he attempted to steady the Arc of the Covenant; 2 Samuel: 6: 6-7). Simply put, the Son of God did not require a mans help.

In Luke 22: 36-38 Jesus is quoted commanding his disciples " if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: And he was numbered with the transgressors; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me." This verse is often quoted and seldom understood. Pro-gunners say Jesus is giving us a command to own weapons. Anti-gunners say that he was only telling his disciples to purchase swords so that they would be "transgressors" thus fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 53:12. Neither is correct.

The anti-gun position is destroyed by a simple reduction: 1) it is a sin to command others to sin, 2) Christ never sinned, and 3) therefore Christ never commanded his disciples to sin. Disproving the pro-gun position on these verses is a little more difficult. They have made the mistake of oversimplification their interpretation is the patently obvious one. Lets do a little exegesis.

The context here is a discussion between Christ and his disciples at the Last Supper immediately preceding the crucifixion. Jesus rhetorically asks them in verse 35, "When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?" Jesus is describing his time on earth when he directly watched over his disciples. In verse 36 He changes direction and starts talking about the immediate future in which His carnal presence will ultimately be removed after the accession: "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you dont have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." The "now" referred to is the beginning of the disciples ministry to the world. Christ goes on to explain that things are changing because of the imminent fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah: "And he was numbered with the transgressors" -- as indeed he was when crucified as a criminal side-by-side with two thieves (when Jesus took upon Himself the sins of those He saved, even God the Father forsook Him in this manner Christ was a transgressor).


I'll finish by saying that for the most part, Law Enforecement officers who are in the field, dealing with the public, fully embrace and encourage CCW, and peoples right to protect themself. And a quote from Ted Nugent, who's a big excentric to put it lightly, but has an interesting mentality that few can deny.

 Written by:

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.



#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom


Stargazer


Total posts: 6650
Posted:Lurch - I l.o.v.e. (!) the picture ubblol hug



Now combine it with this one and tell me that it would hold the same message:
Non-Https Image Link




I had contact with a family in the US where the kid got a heavy Smith and Wesson colt for his 18th birthday. The house contained enough arms to equip a group of 10 people and these guns were stored in a board, protected by thin glass only (haven't dared to ask where they keep the ammo). It's unfortunate that those, who act very responsible with their guns have to pay the price for those who don't - but that is the problem in many topics of society.



If I'd go for a gun club in Germany, I could obtain a license and buy/ own a gun. Thing is that every German citizen (with proper background) can do the same. But reality is that it (usually) doesn't even come to our minds to do so. Why is that? Is crime not as frequent, or violent as in the US or do guns play a different role in our societies? Well if you look at the statistics you may get the picture. IF you take the European Union as a whole and compare it with the US (which I think would be fair approach) you just notice that guns don't (have to) play such a significant role in our (individual) lives and that we (generally) feel very well protected by our law enforcement. This might certainly be due to density of our population.



There are a few issues to address within the US (such as environment, guns and death penalty, to name those most important to me) - the fact whether or not the government really represents the opinion of their citizens is certainly another one of them. If you feel misrepresented by your government on such a large scale and you gain the impression that much (international respect) goes down the gutter, then you have to stand up and do something about it - at least do spread the word. Personally I experienced the US-citizens (that I met) politically "interested", but either unable or unwilling to voice criticism - not even to speak of participating in a rally, or even just to go and cast their vote in the election.



If you, who participate in the discussion [on the US side] now feel like you have to take all the beating... Please (at least from my side) excuse me for that - you just happen to stand in the line of (friendly) fire. redface hug Nothing personal (at least from my side) smile


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

biggins
SILVER Member since Sep 2002

biggins

member
Location: In Bed

Total posts: 165
Posted:lurch - u are a star. at the end of the day this is just one of those things that is going to go around and around. people will disagree with each others views and you will probably no doubt continue to feel like you are banging your head against a brick wall. but thank you for wading through all these arguments from us non - americans.



pounce - stop being the victim, very few snide comments. no saying you cant have your gun. put very simply, we ask why things like the Virg. Tech shootings happen and point out that from the outside we look in and see that there are a lot of guns readily available (compared to lots of other places) and that *maybe* there is a correlation somewhere down the line and that *maybe* if guns were less readily available then *maybe* these things would happen less frequently. so people asking why guns are needed and expressing their views about organisations like the NRA that seem to think that the solution is more guns.



like i said, i think there is a whole world of mutual head/wall banging going on.



good thread. thanks again lurch & pounce.



i'm off out of here....



fanx y'all

bigginsxx

EDITED_BY: biggins (1177461317)


Wielding a Wooden Spoon

Delete

JauntyJames
SILVER Member since Dec 2004

JauntyJames

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Hampshire College, MA, USA

Total posts: 3533
Posted:I think that my problem with situations like this is that I have too good a sense of perspective. Thirty some people were shot and killed. That sucks. How many thousands of people died in car accidents and from terminal illnesses that same day? Were their deaths any less terrible? "The death of one is a tragedy, but the death of millions is merely a statistic"
EDITED_BY: sparkey (1177462107)


-James

"How do you know if you're happy or sad without a mask? Or angry? Or ready for dessert?"

Delete

pineapple pete
SILVER Member since Sep 2004

pineapple pete

water based
Location: melbourne

Total posts: 5125
Posted:lurch, i didnt *yet* comment on the medias influence on guncrimes, all i set out to do (in my previous post) was remove the hollywood factor from the argument, therefore helping to refine the issue.

hug


"you know there are no trophys for doing silly things in real life yeah pete?" said ant "you wont get a 'listened to ride of the valkyries all the way to vietnam' trophy"

*proud owner of the very cute fire_spinning_angel, birgit and neon shaolin*

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:"No one has greater love than this, to lay down one's life for one's friends."(John 15:13)

Thats an interesting quote faithinfire. I think Jesus was talking about friendship in that passage. So to continue in the vein of friendship, Id say a message that would be relevant today is "No one has greater love than this, to lay down their guns for one's friends." As it seems obvious the some of us value guns more than friends.

Lurch, the analogy between guns and air bags doesnt work for me. A gun is weapon designed to kill, an air bag is protective device. A better analogy would be air bags and body armour. If you really cared about friends and family you would buy them bullet proof vests.

Lurch, I understand the gun community is comprised of law-abiding citizens. I just dont understand it when you start saying things like they have already forfeited their life. Or They have to have the opportunity to attack me." Or if they do not respect my life enough not to try and take it, I'm not going to show them that same kindness This seems like paranoia, to me.

Im sure what George Washington said was relevant at the time of the American War of Independence, or when slave uprisings were a threat. But, we live in different time. A time when guns like slavery should be put in the past.


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

Delete

Lurch
BRONZE Member since Nov 2003

Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon

Total posts: 929
Posted:Guns *are* a protective device. My gun will protect me nicely, it will not do much to protect the bad guy though. Body armor isn't a feasible option, A: it's too expensive, B: it doesn't do as much nor protect as well as most people think, C: is extremely uncomfortable, and D: is illegal in many places.

As for the comment about them having forfeited their life. If someone is going to attack me, I'm going to do whatever I have to do to end that threat, I'm not going to put myself at undue risk in order to try and protect them. They didn't show me that respect, I'm not going to show them. It's not paranoia, it's a matter of respect.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
BRONZE Member since Mar 2017

faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin

Total posts: 3556
Posted:thank goodness this thread slowed, i don't spend all day catching up smile
now, stone, you can't go rewriting the Bible, laying down guns, and laying down life are two completely different things. Mostly, yes, do not be violent, that is the message, but defend your family, your friends, the person in need. That message also pervades the Bible.
It is only paranoia when there is no real threat. Lurch has imo shown that he has had reason to believe there is a threat to his life, pounce as well, me too

I am not progun, give me a dagger or throwing knives, but I will not be made a victim. I have in the past, and it will not happen again.


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

Delete

pounce
SILVER Member since Jan 2003

pounce

All the neurotic makings of America's lesser known sweetheart
Location: body in Las Vegas, heart all a...

Total posts: 9831
Posted: Written by: Stone


As it seems obvious the some of us value guns more than friends.




I think you're being unfair and slightly judgmental here. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite is true. Lurch (and myself) have said rather plainly that we place a very high value on our family and friends. Anyone who knows me personally knows that nothing comes before my family and friends, not even myself. And I think both Lurch and I have stated we will protect them with any means necessary, guns or not.

 Written by: Stone


Im sure what George Washington said was relevant at the time of the American War of Independence, or when slave uprisings were a threat. But, we live in different time. A time when guns like slavery should be put in the past.



You're right, we live in a different time, one without legalized slavery. We don't have to worry about slave uprisings. Instead we have to worry about theives and (wannabe) gangsters trying to prove something to their "friends" and people like Cho who think it glorifies them to kill as many people as they can. If we want to adapt our laws and Constitution to modern times, we also have to be willing to look at how modern times apply in different but equally important ways to many laws that were made as the foundation to America.

The purpose of the Constitution versus laws was our forefathers who believed certain principles should be set as the foundation of America's beliefs. They believed that in the creation of this nation, certain ideals needed to be set so that those freedoms could not be taken away. Obviously it wasn't a perfect concept, and I acknowledge some things need to change as we evolve as a nation. But the ideal behind the wording of the Second Amendment, I believe, was to allow the citizens to be able to defend themselves against real threats. The right to bear "arms" does not only apply to guns...there is some case law that acknowledges the ammendment also allows for knives, mace/pepper spray, stun guns, etc. We cannot simply remove the Second Amendment, it's not that easy, and we can't do it without very real and dangerous consequences. In 2001, he 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment preserves an individuals "right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training." United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001). However the Court ruled "that does not mean that those rights may never be made subject to any limited, narrowly tailoredexceptions or restrictions." *That* is the difference between the Consitution and law. No one is saying we shouldn't have certain controls and restrictions to our gun laws, but I don't believe the freedom to protect oneself with the right to carry and bear arms should be taken away. America and its government was founded on certain ideals, and like it or not, we are a nation that stands by those ideals. While our Constitution and laws are not without flaws (no government is), most of us believe in the ideals and principles this nation was founded on (and based on our immigration rates, I'd say there is a significant percentage of the world who would agree with us).


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**

Delete

Stone
GOLD Member since Jun 2001

Stream Entrant
Location: Melbourne

Total posts: 2830
Posted:Fore sure, Im glad this thread has slowed down smile

Lurch, perhaps paranoia is too strong a word. People living in other western democratic countries dont seem to live with the same fear. I dont understand why you dont want to change this situation

Apologies, faithinfire and pounce, I wasnt intending to re-write the bible. What I meant to say, and should have edited, was As it seems obvious that some of us value guns more than people (not friends, as previously stated).

pounce, I never suggested America needs to re-write any laws, or change the Second Amendment. I dont think anyone suggested that ..the freedom to protect oneself with the right to carry and bear arms should be taken away...

All I said was, it was time for Americas to hang up their guns. People voluntarily getting rid of their guns in an effort to make the world a better place to live in. Because, what we got at the moment aint working. From Vietnam to Iraq and gangster rap,rap,rap. Its just a repeat of more bigger, better, smarter guns.

So from all this discussion, Id say I smile first, shoot later wink




grouphug


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

Delete

jeff(fake)


jeff(fake)

Scientist of Fortune
Location: Edinburgh

Total posts: 1189
Posted: Written by: Lurch

Guns *are* a protective device.


The argument is being made a lot, but I'm not seeing much to back it up. It seems quite common for people to imagine a kind of Die Hard situation in which a civilian with guns saves the day, but in real life this almost never happens. The reality is that when a civilian (or a poorly trained non-civilian) produces a gun their immediate situation becomes even more dangerous for themselves and those around them.


According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle of Quantum Dynamics, we may already be making love right now...

Delete

LazyAngel
GOLD Member since Jul 2004

LazyAngel

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: Cambridge UK

Total posts: 2895
Posted:the problem with guns (especially automatic and semi-automatic weapons) is that they are efficient at killing lots of people.

I would never suggest for a moment that you don't have a right to defend yourself if you believe yourself in danger: That would be extremely silly.

But if two people start shooting at each other with guns, 'sphere of danger' is a lot wider than two people having a knife fighte (i.e there's much more chance of an innocent bystander being injured).

Also, I would be interested to know how much of the feeling for the need for a gun for protection is based upon the assumption that if someone attacks you, they will be using a gun as well. To put it crudely, its a little bit like a game or rock, paper, scissors, except a gun trumps pretty much everything.

The problem is that, the easier you make it for your average citizen to get hold of a gun, the easier you make it for criminals: surely knowing how easy it is to purchase a firearm in the states must influence your assumption of what criminals would be armed with?

Personally, I don't think automatic weapons should be available outside of the military. To ANYBODY.


Because ActiveAngel sounds like a feminine deodorant

Like sex, I'm much more interesting in real life than online.

'Be the change you want to see in the world around you' - Ghandi

Delete

onewheeldave
GOLD Member since Aug 2002

Carpal \'Tunnel
Location: sheffield

Total posts: 3252
Posted: Written by: LazyAngel







Personally, I don't think automatic weapons should be available outside of the military. To ANYBODY.





They're not, in the US- it's been pointed out several times that automatic weapons are not available to civilians.



 Written by: LazyAngel







Also, I would be interested to know how much of the feeling for the need for a gun for protection is based upon the assumption that if someone attacks you, they will be using a gun as well. To put it crudely, its a little bit like a game or rock, paper, scissors, except a gun trumps pretty much everything.









Actually, there's a distance in which guns don't 'trump' knives, as shown by many police stats based on actual encounters where a gun equipped police man/woman has been fatally injured by a knife assailent- that critical distance is much larger than you'd suppose.



That's not to say that the knife person wins- there's a good chance that both will be seriously hurt/killed.



Neither is it to say that, in the event of being rushed by a knife assailent, that a gun is not a really useful thing to have- it's won't guarantee survival, but is almost certainly better than not being armed- unless it is the sight of a drawn gun itself that has initiated the knife persons decision to attack.


"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!

Delete

Page: 1...56789...11