SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS

[baronWastelan]

A trigger-happy American , big surprise there :rolleyes:
Hopefully the United Nations will move forward with its resolution this week.
.
.
.
.
.
.
LONDON (AP) — Kim Rhode won the gold medal in women's skeet shooting Sunday, making her the first American to take an individual-sport medal in five consecutive Olympics.

Rhode tied the world record and set an Olympic record with 99 points. Wei Ning of China took silver with 91 points and Danka Bartekova of Slovakia got bronze by beating Marina Belikova of Russia in a shootout after they tied with 90 points.

Rhode won a gold medal in double trap at Atlanta as a teenager in 1996, took bronze in that event four years later at Sydney, re-claimed the gold at Athens in 2004 and won the silver in skeet at Beijing in 2008.

In qualifying, Rhode set another Olympic record, missing only one of her 75 shots. Rhode led by four points entering the final, and the way she was connecting Sunday, there was no way she was getting caught.

[5./JG27.Farber]

ehh, I read the tit bit from google on this and it seems Fins make the best shooters. Doubt there will be many British shooters as you need expressed permission from the home office to have a rifle.

This guy should have entered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

[CWMV]

...
Hopefully the United Nations will move forward with its resolution this week.
...

Good god I hope not. Or heck have it for yourselves, I just hope we stay out of it.

Free men are armed, slaves need permission.

[Zorin]

Good god I hope not. Or heck have it for yourselves, I just hope we stay out of it.

Free men are armed, slaves need permission.

Oh, so that is why the US have been constantly involved in military actions for the last two centuries? Ensuring that the rest of the world remain their slaves...

Makes perferct sense, though you may want to try not to **** up your banks leading the world into financial chaos ;)

[Walshy]

Oh, so that is why the US have been constantly involved in military actions for the last two centuries? Ensuring that the rest of the world remain their slaves...

Makes perferct sense, though you may want to try not to **** up your banks leading the world into financial chaos ;)

Well they already did and now to have Obama sit in on Euro meetings and tell us to fix the Euro crisis is a bit rich, seeing as the whole financial crisis originated in America and the selling of subprime mortages to people who could not keep up the repayments ........ Re-Regulate the worlds financial sector now!!!! Maggie and Reagan have a lot to answer for, cause that's where the deregulation began ...................

[pstyle]

Good god I hope not. Or heck have it for yourselves, I just hope we stay out of it.

Free men are armed, slaves need permission.


Free men are those of us who are free from the armed.

[AndyJWest]

free men are those of us who are free from the armed.

qft.

[Walshy]

Two films to watch that I recommend The Last Days of Lehman Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Days_of_Lehman_Brothers) and Inside Job (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film))

[chantaje]

Two films to watch that I recommend The Last Days of Lehman Brothers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_Days_of_Lehman_Brothers) and Inside Job (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_Job_(film))

inside job is great, ill try to see the other one.
dont worry soon china will take over and there they execute corrupt goverment members :grin:

[Jaws2002]

The UN treaty was torpedoed yesterday by Obama, who fears for his chances in the elections.
It was a joke anyway. This kind of treaties never stoped criminals, gangs and terrorists from getting guns, ever. They only hurt the legal civilian international sales. I hope this one too dies. It's worthless.

[Zorin]

The UN treaty was torpedoed yesterday by Obama, who fears for his chances in the elections.
It was a joke anyway. This kind of treaties never stoped criminals, gangs and terrorists from getting guns, ever. They only hurt the legal civilian international sales. I hope this one too dies. It's worthless.

What does a civilian need a machine gun for???

[bongodriver]

What does a civilian need a machine gun for???

So he can shoot another civillian with a machine gun who is about to burgle his house...I think.

[von Pilsner]

The UN treaty was torpedoed yesterday by Obama, who fears for his chances in the elections.

Or simply because the treaty does not mesh with current US laws.

[Jaws2002]

What does a civilian need a machine gun for???

This is not only about machine guns.

[CWMV]

Free men are those of us who are free from the armed.
As long as your government has arms, you are not free from them.
Do you truly believe you have no right to self defense and preservation?

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
-Thomas Jefferson

But the right to arms isnt about hunting or sporting or if a man "needs" to have a weapon, its about the defense of liberty pure and simple.

What does a civilian need a machine gun for???
Individually an armed citizen is meaningless. Collectively they are a source to defend against a government overstepping its bounds and infringing upon the freedom of the citizenry.

”The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
-James Madison

”The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state-controlled police and military are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy. If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military. The hired servants of our rulers. Only the government-and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws.”
-Edward Abbey

"Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
Thomas Jefferson

[Whizkid]

Come on, guys, enough already with the juvenile remarks about firearms. You either like them or you don't, and your opinions aren't going to make a damn bit of difference to either side, so just shut it down, OK?
I happen to be fascinated by the Snipers art, and enjoy reading about the incredible privations they have to endure to carry out their jobs. Two fiction books by Gunny Jack Coughlin I can recommend, "Kill Zone" and "Dead Shot". And that link about the Finnish Sniper................Incredible!

[Sternjaeger II]

What does a civilian need a machine gun for???

ask that to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944...

Guys, not another gun debate please, I don't think you can understand if you've never used one, and surely the higher moral grounds of some of the anti-gun people here show very poor historical memory and lack of common sense.

Feel free to live without the need for a gun, but please save your wit and sarcasm, because you never know in life when/if you're gonna need to handle a gun.. let's hope not, but if it happens you'd better know what to do..

[WTE_Galway]

Firearms as toys, for sport, as a hobby, as a collectable or for hunting all seem reasonable and relatively sane.

The idea that when the tea baggers and Palin takeover the US government and as a result the US military, a popular uprising of patriotic Americans armed with assault rifles and hand guns will be able to oust them is just insanity.

[baronWastelan]

The post above this is a perfect example of why English lessons should not be taken in a pub over a few pints. On second thought, that's how the English language was devised in the first place.

[Zorin]

ask that to the Jews in the Warsaw ghetto in 1944...

Guys, not another gun debate please, I don't think you can understand if you've never used one, and surely the higher moral grounds of some of the anti-gun people here show very poor historical memory and lack of common sense.

Feel free to live without the need for a gun, but please save your wit and sarcasm, because you never know in life when/if you're gonna need to handle a gun.. let's hope not, but if it happens you'd better know what to do..

There is a HUGE difference between knowing how to handle a gun and having your personal arsenal at home to be abused at will.

So perhaps get off your high moral ground and take CWMV's outdated quotations from men who never knew modern societies with you.

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

[MadBlaster]

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

ok,which is it Zorin?

1) you are a homo
2) you are a female
3) you are alien poeple visiting from another planet

cuz, that statement...like a "kick me" sign on your back.

[CWMV]

Firearms as toys, for sport, as a hobby, as a collectable or for hunting all seem reasonable and relatively sane.

The idea that when the tea baggers and Palin takeover the US government and as a result the US military, a popular uprising of patriotic Americans armed with assault rifles and hand guns will be able to oust them is just insanity.

Then what exactly do you believe our second amendment is about? It has nothing to do with any of the things you mentioned.
Its the guarantee that our other liberties will not be violated.
For instance the first major pushes for gun control here came in the south, by democrats to keep newly freed slaves from purchasing firearms to defend themselves and their liberty from organizations like the KKK which were heavily southern democrat in composition.

Im not fond of the Tea Party, but no need to be juvenile about them.



There is a HUGE difference between knowing how to handle a gun and having your personal arsenal at home to be abused at will.

So perhaps get off your high moral ground and take CWMV's outdated quotations from men who never knew modern societies with you.

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

For a group of guys that didn't know the modern world they sure did a bang up job at building the foundations of the worlds only remaining superpower eh? Its reasonable to believe that as they advocated the civilian ownership of military grade weaponry at the time they would do so even in the modern era.
The beautiful thing about their vision is that it is based in liberty, the definition of which has changed little since their era.
To be free is to accept the consequences of your actions and those around you. You punish people for breaking the law when it happens, trying to punish people by infringing on their intrinsic human rights so that they are incapable of committing crimes is a totalitarian measure.

Reasonable limits would be, for example, the right to flail your arms about at will until you hit someone in the nose at which point you are in violation of the law and dealt with accordingly. What you would have the government do is cut off everyone's arms so that they cant injure anyone at all.
That's not a trade I'm happy with.

The only other thing I question is this assertion that modern democracy is non violent. There are always going to be those that are violent and resort to violence to get their way. It is the single constant through human history. In fact these peaceful democracies are the source of a great deal of the worlds aggression. Iraq and Libya anyone?
The way you would have peace is by having the monopoly of arms held by the government. History has also shown us time and time again that this condition is not healthy for the freedom of the people.
People fear the government=totalitarian rule. Government fears the people=freedom. Simple equation.

[chantaje]

your joking madblaster right? , since when being a "homo" or a "female" is something bad or a type of insult?

the argument of weapons as a defence of the goverment abuses is bs in my opinion, anyone uses their weapons to figth against the massive robbery of the bailouts or the corrupt regulators that rape the dollar?

if anyone do that they would be "silenced" in a second, named as terrorist and would won a vacation to the paradisiac beaches of guantanamo. as they say earlier a rifle dont do sht against giant spying institutions , smart bombs and uavs.

just to make a shitty comparisson , in my country 40 years ago there was a military goverment, of course some tried to resist with rifles. today human rigths organizations are searching for theirs bones.. and my country military and intelligence agencies have no comparisson to the most militarized state of the world

[CWMV]

And the idea is that EVERYONE would rise against such a threat.

As I said, single armed persons are pointless. But when the populace of a nation as a whole are trained and armed very few governments could withstand their assault.
Your people were an example of this:
accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed
A few brave patriots cant do much, but when the population is galvanized change is not just possible but inevitable.


Now open question here, what fault can you find in this statement? Seems to be something all can agree on yes? Is this not a reasonable statement?
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[CWMV]

the argument of weapons as a defence of the goverment abuses is bs in my opinion, anyone uses their weapons to figth against the massive robbery of the bailouts or the corrupt regulators that rape the dollar?



Come on man really? Has nothing at all to do with the argument at hand. I understand your angry about what happened, as are most, but trying to connect this and that are WAY, um...outside the box...;)

[MadBlaster]

yes, it was little joke. I try to take the cheap shot and offend people whenever I can. its my nature. born street fighter.;)

You have to remember, our country, USA, was founded on revolution and freedom. Guns, the willingness to fight or die for freedom, this is fundamental. No one supporting gun ownership is saying an armed citizenry will prevent corruption in business or government. It does not make a perfect world. What 2nd amendment is saying is that the people come first. The government is subordinate to the people. And the only way to enforce the people over the government in the final tally is to allow the people to have guns. It's a high stakes poker game for last 200+ years since the founding of the country. It also doesn't guarantee success. Democracy is messy. I fear the people may becomes so apathetic from all the government entitlements, free porn, video games and media circus that they forget why we have the 2nd amendment or why citizens should have guns. So they see this joker dude slaughter bunch of people tv and then have knee jerk reaction for gun control. This debate has been going on for decades and decades too.

[rhinomonkey]

USA gun laws are similar to Canada and other countries but the USA has a far higher gun murder rate. This would suggest that the problem lies with the people or the society in wich they live rather then the laws.

I find it amazing listening to the pro gun arguments. The attitude that gun restrictions are an afront to civil liberties to me sounds like utter madness. It's usually the same people that claim that universal healthcare is an attack on civil liberty! madness!

The only other countries that have high gun ownership and death rate are places in the developing world that suffer from high poverty and very corrupt or non existant government like somalia, afghanistan and south Africa. USA is interesting as it's a developed country and should have moved on by now but in some ways it hasn't. Personally i think that lack of robust health and welfare infastructure and the huge wealth gap may have something to do with it. For a rich country it's still very much dog eat dog.

Personally I would not want to live in a country where everyone felt the need to own firearms.

[Sternjaeger II]

Firearms as toys, for sport, as a hobby, as a collectable or for hunting all seem reasonable and relatively sane.

The idea that when the tea baggers and Palin takeover the US government and as a result the US military, a popular uprising of patriotic Americans armed with assault rifles and hand guns will be able to oust them is just insanity.

..and you think that a revolution would happen in such a black or white scenario? Do you really think that the whole Army would obey the Government? Do you guys have televisions? Are you seeing what's happening in Syria? :confused:

There is a HUGE difference between knowing how to handle a gun and having your personal arsenal at home to be abused at will.

So perhaps get off your high moral ground and take CWMV's outdated quotations from men who never knew modern societies with you.

WE, the poeple who are against fire arms being kept in the hands of civilians, have actually learned from history and embrace the non-violent means of modern democracy, which have been developed by mankind as a lesson learned from history.

You see, you're yet again talking like someone who never really had anything to do with guns. I had to serve in the Army (I was the last generation that had to do it compulsory) and I learned to handle a gun(and a machinegun, a mortar, a field cannon, granades and many other amenities). The best thing I've learned from it though is respect and responsibility in the handling of a firearm, because those are the first things your drill sergeant teaches you.
Because of my interest in WW1/WW2 and shooting I have a modest collection of rifles and pistols: it's a fascinating and interesting hobby, but of course to the uneducated it's just "an arsenal". I normally take people like you to the range and let them live the "shooting range experience", where not only you get to shoot firearms of course, but you get to talk with a lot other people who're passionate like myself, just to understand that we're not all deranged lunatics on a spree, but there are many professional, serious and respectable members of society who share a hobby. The bullet coming out of the barrel and hitting the target is only a part of the hobby, there's a lot more into it.

What scares me is the people like you, who don't know about it but feel the urge to say we're doing wrong, and would rather get rid of firearms and not have a problem with it just because it's not their hobby. I could argue that using a simulator or any other game that allows you to deliberately shoot at stacks of people is wrong because it desensitises young people to violence...

And history says you're wrong btw, and there are more than a couple of examples, like the one below...


just to make a shitty comparisson , in my country 40 years ago there was a military goverment, of course some tried to resist with rifles. today human rigths organizations are searching for theirs bones.. and my country military and intelligence agencies have no comparisson to the most militarized state of the world

...so it's better to bow to a violent dictator than trying and fight him? Lybians and Syrians might have a lesson or two to teach us..

[CaptainDoggles]

In 2003, there were about 19.5 times more gun deaths in the US than in Australia, Austria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom (England, Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland) combined.

Is that because Americans are more homicidal by nature?

[Sternjaeger II]

USA gun laws are similar to Canada and other countries but the USA has a far higher gun murder rate. This would suggest that the problem lies with the people or the society in wich they live rather then the laws.
Well Canada is not like the US, and of course it's all about the people. Firearms per se are just a tool, they don't kill anyone if they're left untouched.


I find it amazing listening to the pro gun arguments. The attitude that gun restrictions are an afront to civil liberties to me sounds like utter madness. It's usually the same people that claim that universal healthcare is an attack on civil liberty! madness!

once again, open a history book, or look for history of gun control in regimes..

Personally I would not want to live in a country where everyone felt the need to own firearms.

it's not about need, it's about freedom to own a gun.

[Verhängnis]

Should we ban kitchen knives too? :rolleyes:

[Sternjaeger II]

Should we ban kitchen knives too? :rolleyes:

they actually tried here in the UK..

[CaptainDoggles]

Should we ban kitchen knives too? :rolleyes:

Can you climb up a bell tower with a kitchen knife and kill 47 people at the University of Texas?

[mazex]

ok,which is it Zorin?

1) you are a homo
2) you are a female
3) you are alien poeple visiting from another planet

cuz, that statement...like a "kick me" sign on your back.

This forum sure has seen many uneducated and prejudiced posts, but this passes the line with a big margin. You really should apologize for a post like this.

[rhinomonkey]

Well Canada is not like the US, and of course it's all about the people. Firearms per se are just a tool, they don't kill anyone if they're left untouched.

Agreed


once again, open a history book, or look for history of gun control in regimes..

Well history tells us that brutal regimes tend not to get overthrown by an armed population. What usually defeats a brutal regime is the military turning against it or a forign power stepping in. I don't think that an armed population on it's own would have that much of a chance against a military on it's own and it would lead to an entrenched drawn out bloody civil war. I also think that it's so unlikely that the population of a modern western democracy would have to defend it's self against it's own millitary, that on it's own its a weak excuse for gun ownership

it's not about need, it's about freedom to own a gun.

You are only free to do what your governments sets out in Law. Ultimate freedom is a misnomer. You are not completely free.
The simple fact is that people use guns to kill other people. the US has a terrible problem with gun murder it would be a responsible act by the governmnet to restrict access to guns. However the USA is a democracy and as such any act needs to be sactioned by the people, so, as long is there isn't the will to restrict guns it wont happen. This is why i couldn't lie in the USA for the same reasons i would not live in Somallia or Afghanistan. Lots of gun death and no restrictions on weapons.

[nearmiss]

The man in Colorado had 30 grenades in his apartment rigged with gasoline to cause further disater, if his apartment was entered.

If that guy didn't have access to a gun... what do you think he would have been able to do with 30 grenades in a dark theatre? He would have killed and maimed 100s more. If every grenade killed 8 people the count would have been 240 dead. That would be a reasonable assumption for a densely crowded theatre.

He could have stood off in a dark corner and tossed grenades into the crowd. It would have taken too long for people to recognize what was happening or who was doing it. Average Americans have never experienced that kind of terror attack.

Take away the guns and the killers will find a way...especially if they are unrestrained by any reprisal power from their victims.

Don't even think it's the cops driving the neighborhood that are going to stop anything. What took the cops so long to stop the Columbine and Aurora massacre..oops they didn't stop them. They waited for the shooting to stop. The cops were in protect thyself mode. The cops waited for the shooting to stop...then they did their number one specialty of herding the sheeple.

There are numerous criminal combative situations that take place all the time and the criminals are subdued by some average citizen with a gun. Those crimes prevented are reported locally, but national media doesn't report them.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrKFiFUIcxv_7b1IjJbZS1Pe3uvP85S 8_bEAsrei7jApDJHhM8

[Verhängnis]

Can you climb up a bell tower with a kitchen knife and kill 47 people at the University of Texas?

The Rwandans managed nearly a million people with machetes, which is like a kitchen knife, slightly bigger I guess... So I guess you could... ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

The simple fact is that people use guns to kill other people.

and that sums up the ignorance of many on the topic.

Don't you really think it's ridiculous to express such broad statements on a topic you obviously know nothing about? :confused:

[CaptainDoggles]

Aw, how cute, the pro-gun people are ignoring the statistics.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=449201&postcount=29

[Sternjaeger II]

The man in Colorado had 30 grenades in his apartment rigged with gasoline to cause further disater, if his apartment was entered.

If that guy didn't have access to a gun... what do you think he would have been able to do with 30 grenades in a dark theatre? He would have killed and maimed 100s more. If every grenade killed 8 people the count would have been 240 dead. That would be a reasonable assumption for a densely crowded theatre.

He could have stood off in a dark corner and tossed grenades into the crowd. It would have taken too long for people to recognize what was happening or who was doing it. Average Americans have never experienced that kind of terror attack.

Take away the guns and the killers will find a way...especially if they are unrestrained by any reprisal power from their victims.

Don't even think it's the cops driving the neighborhood that are going to stop anything. What took the cops so long to stop the Columbine and Aurora massacre..oops they didn't stop them. They waited for the shooting to stop. The cops were in protect thyself mode. The cops waited for the shooting to stop...then they did their number one specialty of herding the sheeple.

There are numerous criminal combative situations that take place all the time and the criminals are subdued by some average citizen with a gun. Those crimes prevented are reported locally, but national media doesn't report them.

+ 100.

That idiot could have killed a lot more had he actually used some brains: if you really want to go on a shooting spree and really kill you'd need an AK and hollow points, not a 5.56 and FMJ ammo.
To me this is the sign of an alienated individual who grew up playing with FPS and wanting to be really behind a rifle and feel the thrill to shoot people. He didn't probably care about killing as many as possible, he probably only wanted to get his twisted fantasies to the real world, and as Nearmiss said, had he not readily available guns he could have used any other mean.

A killer is a killer, a gun is only a tool of choice.

[Sternjaeger II]

Aw, how cute, the pro-gun people are ignoring the statistics.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpost.php?p=449201&postcount=29

a lot of statistics on murder rates don't take into account how the felony was perpetrated, gun-whiners give it for granted that it was a gun crime, that tells a lot about their bias..

[Verhängnis]

Unfortunately, I don't see everyday gun owners committing massacres... should we ban the entry of Muslims into the the country because a few decide to go off their nut and blow themselves up?

[rhinomonkey]

and that sums up the ignorance of many on the topic.

Don't you really think it's ridiculous to express such broad statements on a topic you obviously know nothing about? :confused:

Not really. Did you read the rest of my post? I cant see what's wrong with pointing out that people use guns to kill each other thats why there is high gun death rate in countries like USA Somialia and Afghanistan where there is no gun control mixed with social problems. I didn't say people only use guns to kill each other, i do realise that there are many legitimate reasons for owning firearms. Sport shooting, hunting, pest control etc.

[Sternjaeger II]

Unfortunately, I don't see everyday gun owners committing massacres... should we ban the entry of Muslims into the the country because a few decide to go off their nut and blow themselves up?
as much as I wholeheartedly agree with you, watch out for the stuff you talk about here, this can easily get out of control..

[von Pilsner]

This forum sure has seen many uneducated and prejudiced posts, but this passes the line with a big margin. You really should apologize for a post like this.

I would have to agree, it shows his maturity level is probably not high enough to have a grown up discussion about a topic like this....

a lot of statistics on murder rates don't take into account how the felony was perpetrated, gun-whiners give it for granted that it was a gun crime, that tells a lot about their bias..

So people who disagree with your views (and that is what they are, not facts) are whiners.... Also very mature.

I own guns, but we never used assault rifles or 100 round magazines for hunting. I can understand why restricting or limiting purchase of these weapons and magazines seems reasonable as their apparent function is only to kill humans.

[nearmiss]

It is important to remember history.

It has been reported so many times the German people during WW2 were complicit when they allowed Hitler to kill and destroy so many people. This is terribly inaccurate reporting.

Hitler conscripted all the guns right after he came into power. Hitler's army and collaborators had guns, but the German people were prevented from having guns. German citizens were shot on the spot for having guns. There are accounts of citizens being killed when they tried to surrender their guns to the Nazi.

When people have had no way to defend themselves, defend their rights or protect others, then despotic leaders have always had their way.

Look at North Korea. There are plenty of people under the thumb of that dictatorships right now. All over the world there are dictatorships empowered, because their people have no adequate means to resist or protect themselves.

[von Pilsner]

Unfortunately, I don't see everyday gun owners committing massacres...

That's because the moment they commit a massacre you no longer classify them as an everyday gun owner, the difference being one shot a bunch of people with his legally purchased guns while the other did not.

[Sternjaeger II]

Not really. Did you read the rest of my post? I cant see what's wrong with pointing out that people use guns to kill each other thats why there is high gun death rate in countries like USA Somialia and Afghanistan where there is no gun control mixed with social problems. I didn't say people only use guns to kill each other, i do realise that there are many legitimate reasons for owning firearms. Sport shooting, hunting, pest control etc.

because you're distorting things with semantics. Yes, if you want to you can use a gun to kill a person, but same thing is with a car, a cricket bat, a knife... everything has a killing potential, but it's not the ban of such things that will control the animal spirit of human beings.

Massacres are a sad reality of human kind since the beginning of the homo sapiens day. Portable firearms on the other hand became available only in the late 19th century, to think that banning firearms will automatically stop violence is ludicrous for two main reasons:

1) criminals won't hand their weapons in, can you really imagine that happen?
2) psychopaths that want to kill will still do it.

The thing to understand is that people that commit such atrocities are not regular folks, they're mentally deranged. The problem is that gun licenses should be given following more effective checks on the person and with mandatory conditions such as "you need to attend your local shooting range regularly", I can guarantee that weirdos will be easily spotted in this way and the authorities will be warned promptly.

[Verhängnis]

The thing to understand is that people that commit such atrocities are not regular folks, they're mentally deranged. The problem is that gun licenses should be given following more effective checks on the person and with mandatory conditions such as "you need to attend your local shooting range regularly", I can guarantee that weirdos will be easily spotted in this way and the authorities will be warned promptly.

This. ^^ And actually, what distinguishes a law enforcement agent owning a firearm to any other citizen? They are just as capable of going on killing sprees as the next man............

[Sternjaeger II]

I would have to agree, it shows his maturity level is probably not high enough to have a grown up discussion about a topic like this....

So people who disagree with your views (and that is what they are, not facts) are whiners.... Also very mature.

I own guns, but we never used assault rifles or 100 round magazines for hunting. I can understand why restricting or limiting purchase of these weapons and magazines seems reasonable as their apparent function is only to kill humans.

It's that I'm sick and tired of people that complain about gun ownership, as if that is the real problem behind violence, and not the totally lost values of modern societies.

A 100 rounds magazine is surely OTT, and frankly it's just a useless piece of accessory(I don't understand people that like slaughtering their barrels by shooting that much in a row), but how is that different from owning ten 10 rounds magazines? A trained Car-15 owner can easily reload his rifle in less than 7 seconds.

"Assault rifle" is only a designation, an MP-44 is one, but it's also an extremely sought after collectable WW2 firearm, shall we ban it just cos it can cycle rounds on a semiauto mode?

[von Pilsner]

It's that I'm sick and tired of people that complain about gun ownership, as if that is the real problem behind violence, and not the totally lost values of modern societies.
I understand and agree, but it was the whiners thing that actually made me have to post... :D (and what MadBlaster said, but I don't expect him to have a reasonable discussion on the issue).

A 100 rounds magazine is surely OTT, and frankly it's just a useless piece of accessory(I don't understand people that like slaughtering their barrels by shooting that much in a row), but how is that different from owning ten 10 rounds magazines? A trained Car-15 owner can easily reload his rifle in less than 7 seconds.

The reload time gives people more of a chance to shoot back. (I don't know what OTT means) Spree shooters are often not trained gun owners and may take a bit longer to reload than you do. The kid in Aurora (I live in Aurora BTW and lost a co-worker in the shooting) was not some ex-military badass... he was a pissed off psychopath with no combat experience so his reload time would have been much slower (didn't he jam his assault rifle?).

"Assault rifle" is only a designation, an MP-44 is one, but it's also an extremely sought after collectable WW2 firearm, shall we ban it just cos it can cycle rounds on a semiauto mode?

Possibly (I am only vaguely familiar with the 1st assault rifle so I'm not trying to duck the question but it's 526am here and I don't wanna preach about something I am not terribly familiar with), but I don't believe that the MP-44 is being used in a ton of home invasions and crimes. The truth of the matter is that there are limits to the firearms we can legally own (in the USA) so it's really just a matter of where the line is drawn. Some see a waiting period or a background check as an affront to their freedom/liberty others see it as important for the public good. Honestly if someone needs a gun today... RIGHT NOW!!!! they probably should have to wait a few days to get it.

I am ok with waiting periods, background checks, & limiting the magazine size (I get that you think the mag size is irrelevant - we can disagree on that). are you against a reasonable waiting period and background check (even at gun shows)?

[von Pilsner]

Over The Top.... Just figured it out. :D

[mazex]

+ 100.

That idiot could have killed a lot more had he actually used some brains: if you really want to go on a shooting spree and really kill you'd need an AK and hollow points, not a 5.56 and FMJ ammo.
To me this is the sign of an alienated individual who grew up playing with FPS and wanting to be really behind a rifle and feel the thrill to shoot people. He didn't probably care about killing as many as possible, he probably only wanted to get his twisted fantasies to the real world, and as Nearmiss said, had he not readily available guns he could have used any other mean.

A killer is a killer, a gun is only a tool of choice.

Well, in my opinion something has to be behind the fact that there are 7 times more people being murdered in USA per 100.000 citizens compared to a country like Sweden where I live? It can't be that people are seven time more evil in the USA?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

In Sweden the most common murder weapon is a knife as firearms have been regulated for ages... Sure - the "real" criminals have no problem getting hold of firearms, and even automatic ones - but the people that are having some kind of mental trauma are not going to have an easy way of getting even a pistol, much less an AK... So when some poor kid with problems get an idea like this they will have no easy way of getting hold of a firearm without a lot of connections that they don't have.

Then there are actually a lot of firearms around in Sweden as a lot of people like to hunt and there is no problem getting a license for that, but a hunting rifle is not well suited for a down town or school "killing spree".

And of course - a country like Norway has a similar legislation and murder rate like Sweden but a man like Breivik still could do a horrible deed in the same fashion, so strict weapon control will naturally not stop the "real lunatics"... But I think that it will stop a lot of disoriented teenagers from doing something really stupid... When you have a firearm there is always a risk that you will use it in a situation where it only escalates a minor crime into a murder. A friend of mine has license for pistols and have a number of guns at home (among them a .44 Magnum), just like many US citizens. In Sweden that is not that common - and almost considered a bit "weird", but having a hunting rifle is not. One late night he woke up by a sound and saw someone trying to steal his Maserati. His first thought was to open his weapon locker and bring out his Baretta or .44 (just like most americans would have done I guess, defending their property?). Then he thought some more and called the police and stayed in the house with the lights out and they got there and cought the criminals... What do you think would have happened if he would have walked out with a gun in his hand? What if the car theif would have had a gun? Was the Maserati that was fully insured worth dying for? Was the car thief doing a crime that was worth getting killed for? What would have happened in a similar situation in Texas? The dilemma was unusual here as 99% of the Swedes don't have a Baretta in the wardrobe and calling the police would be the only option - or going out with the kitchen knife ;)... In my opinion a car is never worth someones life, even though he has a nice car ;)

Then we had a conscription army in Sweden up until a few years ago so almost all male Swedes know how to handle an automatic rifle well - including me... I still feel no need to have one in my wardrobe even though I had a good time in the army as I really liked the shooting exercises, especially night time M240 shooting with tracers etc :)

[Zorin]

..and you think that a revolution would happen in such a black or white scenario? Do you really think that the whole Army would obey the Government? Do you guys have televisions? Are you seeing what's happening in Syria? :confused:



You see, you're yet again talking like someone who never really had anything to do with guns. I had to serve in the Army (I was the last generation that had to do it compulsory) and I learned to handle a gun(and a machinegun, a mortar, a field cannon, granades and many other amenities). The best thing I've learned from it though is respect and responsibility in the handling of a firearm, because those are the first things your drill sergeant teaches you.
Because of my interest in WW1/WW2 and shooting I have a modest collection of rifles and pistols: it's a fascinating and interesting hobby, but of course to the uneducated it's just "an arsenal". I normally take people like you to the range and let them live the "shooting range experience", where not only you get to shoot firearms of course, but you get to talk with a lot other people who're passionate like myself, just to understand that we're not all deranged lunatics on a spree, but there are many professional, serious and respectable members of society who share a hobby. The bullet coming out of the barrel and hitting the target is only a part of the hobby, there's a lot more into it.

What scares me is the people like you, who don't know about it but feel the urge to say we're doing wrong, and would rather get rid of firearms and not have a problem with it just because it's not their hobby. I could argue that using a simulator or any other game that allows you to deliberately shoot at stacks of people is wrong because it desensitises young people to violence...

And history says you're wrong btw, and there are more than a couple of examples, like the one below...



...so it's better to bow to a violent dictator than trying and fight him? Lybians and Syrians might have a lesson or two to teach us..

Open a history book and read about the demise of the GDR. That is how a society fights for their freedoms. Not a single shot fired by the people and they were facing life long imprisonment or death. That is admirable behavior, not running round in a wild mob armed to the teeth.

[Zorin]

The man in Colorado had 30 grenades in his apartment rigged with gasoline to cause further disater, if his apartment was entered.

If that guy didn't have access to a gun... what do you think he would have been able to do with 30 grenades in a dark theatre? He would have killed and maimed 100s more. If every grenade killed 8 people the count would have been 240 dead. That would be a reasonable assumption for a densely crowded theatre.

He could have stood off in a dark corner and tossed grenades into the crowd. It would have taken too long for people to recognize what was happening or who was doing it. Average Americans have never experienced that kind of terror attack.

Take away the guns and the killers will find a way...especially if they are unrestrained by any reprisal power from their victims.

Don't even think it's the cops driving the neighborhood that are going to stop anything. What took the cops so long to stop the Columbine and Aurora massacre..oops they didn't stop them. They waited for the shooting to stop. The cops were in protect thyself mode. The cops waited for the shooting to stop...then they did their number one specialty of herding the sheeple.

There are numerous criminal combative situations that take place all the time and the criminals are subdued by some average citizen with a gun. Those crimes prevented are reported locally, but national media doesn't report them.

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrKFiFUIcxv_7b1IjJbZS1Pe3uvP85S 8_bEAsrei7jApDJHhM8

So do you buy your grenades at the greengrocer along with some apples???

These military grade arms ought to be completely out of reach of the civil population, that is a given. How could anyone assume that restrictive laws on firearms would leave these untouched?

[Kodoss]

Have anyone of you read this article?
http://www.newsonjapan.com/html/newsdesk/article/97558.php

By the way, when sick people want to kill someone, it doesn't play a role which weapon they use. But by restricting the possibility of getting weapons (which are only made for killing) you also lower the innocent victims.

And for thouse who say they need it to protect themself from their own country are either nuts or have no faith in democraty, free press and modern communication instruments.

We are not living in the dark ages anymore.

Edit: at least in the socalled civilised world.

[Bewolf]

Open a history book and read about the demise of the GDR. That is how a society fights for their freedoms. Not a single shot fired by the people and they were facing life long imprisonment or death. That is admirable behavior, not running round in a wild mob armed to the teeth.

That. And not only in the GDR, but in the whole of the eastern european countries as well, with the exception of Romania.

Want to know what happens to a society that is armed? Look no further then Lybia or the rest of the arab spring revolutions, Syria being the latest contender. Mob Rule, death tolls rising, wholesale destruction and after so much blood was shed, the results are the same conditions under a different name.

More freely avaiable weapons in irresponsible hands = rising death toll. That is such an easy equation you need a whole Enceclopedia of arguments to fog this down in a debate.

[F19_Klunk]

funny read on an extremely serious topic... amazing that so many suffers from severe paranoia.

Comparing USA with countries by such as Syria and Libya, governed by dictators who willingly slaughters the population? Are you for real??

Btw....no one today is seriously arguing to take away all guns from homes in the States.. (and actually trying to do so would be a nightmare for anyone who cares about liberty and privacy, given that guns are stashed everywhere and may well outnumber people in America.) Instead, most proposals seek to regulate rather than prohibit--limiting the amount and type of ammunition, restricting the number of guns one can buy etc etc.

who needs a bloody machinegun!?!? I tell you who: crazy f**cs.

are you seriously promoting is should be this easy to buy a *** AK47???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=baPgr_tw79Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raaP5OfRj2E&feature=relmfu

if you think this guy is crazy, u need a reality check.

[Zorin]

funny read on an extremely serious topic... amazing that so many suffers from severe paranoia.

Comparing USA with countries by such as Syria and Libya, governed by dictators who willingly slaughters the population? Are you for real??

Well, there must be a common "iissue" that leads to a similar gun related death toll in those countries ;)

[Sternjaeger II]

The reload time gives people more of a chance to shoot back. (I don't know what OTT means) Spree shooters are often not trained gun owners and may take a bit longer to reload than you do. The kid in Aurora (I live in Aurora BTW and lost a co-worker in the shooting) was not some ex-military badass... he was a pissed off psychopath with no combat experience so his reload time would have been much slower (didn't he jam his assault rifle?).

That's the point, someone who's not an expert will get a 100 rounds magazine and think he won't have problems with it, but those things are prone to jamming and the continuous shooting with no breaking can overheat and jam the gun as well (a good quality Car-15 won't, but there are many replicas, Norinco above all, that are not worth the materials they're made of..).

He was just a deluded individual who fed himself with FPS games and that was left alone long enough to become that dangerous. Maybe we should look at that, maybe we should consider that the path to reach that sort of derangement is not an overnight spark, but often made of months, years of isolation.

As for the other posts after yours, I would like to say again that I am for a more intelligent and strict control on firearm licenses, not for giving them to everybody. And feel free to believe in fairy tales, if with GDR you're referring to Germany Democratic Republic, they overcame only cos Russia crumbled, otherwise they'd still be living the commie dream and spying each other under the Stasi.

If that horrible assault happened in Texas or Alabama you can rest assured that someone in the public would have been armed and could have put a couple of rounds in the idiot's head..

[ATAG_Doc]

The UN has no authority here. They can only ask. Life will go on as usual and guns and clips will be extra bountiful tomorrow. The US doesn't have to abide by anything related to the UN. We didn't elect them. That is settled.

[ATAG_Doc]

Almost 8000 people die in automobile accidents during the first 3 months of 2011. That is a far more deadly tool. Ban the automobile!

[Al Schlageter]

Almost 8000 people die in automobile accidents during the first 3 months of 2011. That is a far more deadly tool. Ban the automobile!

How many of those automobile deaths were deliberate?

[ATAG_Doc]

COME AND TAKE'EM U.N.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjvfqp4ONYc

[Bewolf]

funny read on an extremely serious topic... amazing that so many suffers from severe paranoia.

Comparing USA with countries by such as Syria and Libya, governed by dictators who willingly slaughters the population? Are you for real??

Yes, I am for real. After all why else was the second amendment included? Certainly not to raise up against a democratic government in the tradition of a justice state, n'est pas?

That this debate is purely hypothetical should be obvious. As obvious that the US won't be ruled by some sort of regime anytime soon. Which in return makes the possession of weapons kinda pointless to begin with.

[Bewolf]

Almost 8000 people die in automobile accidents during the first 3 months of 2011. That is a far more deadly tool. Ban the automobile!

So, how many people ride to work on their bullets?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l18w9aQEYlA/T0I3AJtDthI/AAAAAAAABsU/uZZKkc4iNsM/s1600/muenchhausen.jpg

[Sternjaeger II]

So, how many people ride to work on their bullets?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l18w9aQEYlA/T0I3AJtDthI/AAAAAAAABsU/uZZKkc4iNsM/s1600/muenchhausen.jpg

Use a bicycle ;-)

http://www.uh.edu/engines/bicycle.gif

[ATAG_Doc]

So, how many people ride to work on their bullets?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l18w9aQEYlA/T0I3AJtDthI/AAAAAAAABsU/uZZKkc4iNsM/s1600/muenchhausen.jpg

You don't worry about the details. Be on time or I fire them. That's all I am required to do. How they get there is not my business. KWIM?

[Bewolf]

You don't worry about the details. Be on time or I fire them. That's all I am required to do. How they get there is not my business. KWIM?

So, there you possibly have one of the reasons for the amount of deaths on the road.

[ATAG_Doc]

Yes I do. They are responding to this thread! While driving!

[Bewolf]

Yes I do. They are responding to this thread! While driving!

Going suicidal in light of the arguments appearing here? Can't blame them =)

[F19_Klunk]

... Which in return makes the possession of weapons kinda pointless to begin with.

Amen to that...

[Sternjaeger II]

funny read on an extremely serious topic... amazing that so many suffers from severe paranoia.

Comparing USA with countries by such as Syria and Libya, governed by dictators who willingly slaughters the population? Are you for real??

And what's the difference with a bloody oligarchy that sends thousands of youths to fight a war that is not theirs and die for nothing but enriching their own pockets? Are YOU for real?! :rolleyes:


Btw....no one today is seriously arguing to take away all guns from homes in the States.. (and actually trying to do so would be a nightmare for anyone who cares about liberty and privacy, given that guns are stashed everywhere and may well outnumber people in America.) Instead, most proposals seek to regulate rather than prohibit--limiting the amount and type of ammunition, restricting the number of guns one can buy etc etc.

who needs a bloody machinegun!?!? I tell you who: crazy f**cs.

are you seriously promoting is should be this easy to buy a *** AK47???


Good luck with that. Besides, I haven't heard of any "crazy f***s" going on a killing spree with their MG42 or M60 lately, have you? But I tell you what, I would like to see you meeting one of these gentlemen and addressing them in that way.. you wouldn't get shot, you'd probably get a lecture in manners and humiliated by them and their down to earth attitude. Gun lovers don't use them against people, they will do all they can to keep their beloved guns. Last time I checked mowing people with machineguns wasn't ranking high in the list of popular social activities..


if you think this guy is crazy, u need a reality check.
he's not crazy, he's a victim, what you expect one that lived such a shocking experience to say? We all react to violence in different ways, there's people that killed and saw people dying around them during the war and keep on living a normal life, others don't.

Just get to know guns and the people that use them before judging them, don't feed yourself with the garbage you find on the internet.

[Outlaw]

Just for the record...

It has been illegal to purchase a fully automatic weapon (ie, "machine gun") in the US for over 70 years UNLESS you have gone through the licensing process which requires months and an extensive FBI background check. Furthermore, your inventory is limited to THE SINGLE SERIAL NUMBERED WEAPON for which the license noted. Therefore you need a license for EACH weapon.

The only significant use of fully automatic weapons in recent US history were the two bank robbers in LA. Amazingly enough THE ONLY DEATHS WERE THE TWO PEOPLE WITH THE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Additionally, most gun death statistics include accidents and suicides WHICH HAVE NO MEANING IN THE CONTEXT OF GUN CRIMES.

Even better, some gun death statistics include LEGAL SHOOTINGS IN WHICH A CITIZEN KILLED AN ATTACKER!!!!!

Often times the FBI statistics classify adult dependents of the head of household as "children" if they are 21 years or younger. So a 21 year old depressed college student who commits suicide is included in the same group as a 6 year old who accidentally kills themselves (or a playmate) with a firearm that was not properly secured.

Even a brain dead monkey can see HUGE HOLES in the statistics used by the anit-gun lobby.

--Outlaw.

[Bewolf]

Just for the record...

It has been illegal to purchase a fully automatic weapon (ie, "machine gun") in the US for over 70 years UNLESS you have gone through the licensing process which requires months and an extensive FBI background check. Furthermore, your inventory is limited to THE SINGLE SERIAL NUMBERED WEAPON for which the license noted. Therefore you need a license for EACH weapon.

I am not worried about the guy getting his background checked and then a license. I am afraid of the children discovering the keys to the weapons locker, the guy having to sell his weapon for liquidity reasons on the black market, the guy robbing the house of the one having a machine gun lying around, the guy losing his job and wife having a blackout moment. The list goes on.


The only significant use of fully automatic weapons in recent US history were the two bank robbers in LA. Amazingly enough THE ONLY DEATHS WERE THE TWO PEOPLE WITH THE AUTOMATIC WEAPONS.

Well, now we know, if a criminal uses a fully automatic weapon, he will be the one to end up dead. I am sure other criminals learned that lesson and won't ever repeat that.


Additionally, most gun death statistics include accidents and suicides WHICH HAVE NO MEANING IN THE CONTEXT OF GUN CRIMES.

Yeah, but with gun related killings in general.


Even better, some gun death statistics include LEGAL SHOOTINGS IN WHICH A CITIZEN KILLED AN ATTACKER!!!!!

And that is positive, why....? Most people here come out of an attack with a broken nose at best. Hardly with bullet holes. But then again, even the criminals here know they do not have to expect a gun when they enter a house, and in return do not feel the need to bring their own. Result...lots of people actually getting old, both victims and criminals, both having chances to actually tell stories to their grandchildren.


Often times the FBI statistics classify adult dependents of the head of household as "children" if they are 21 years or younger. So a 21 year old depressed college student who commits suicide is included in the same group as a 6 year old who accidentally kills themselves (or a playmate) with a firearm that was not properly secured.


Well, that is the problem with firearms. They are made to kill. That is their only and original purpose. Now when someone gets killed...well, wouldn't have seen that coming.


Even a brain dead monkey can see HUGE HOLES in the statistics used by the anit-gun

--Outlaw.

If you are ague gun crime only, yes. If you argue common sense of so many households in a country that hardly has a concept of integrated society and the responsebilities coming with having free access to firearms, things look a bit different. This might work in Switzerland, a country that is on one page society wise and actually is amall enough that people get to know each other. But even there you have your eventual madman.

[ATAG_Doc]

Just so you can be placed at ease and the discussion can stay civil just make sure that you accept it is what it is today and the free ownership of firearms to its citizens will always be apart of the fabric of the United States. It will not change. It cannot. Its a right that isn't conveyed by a government but before it. A charter of negative liberties that state what they cannot not do. And the right shall not be infringed. So its like a tattoo it isn't going away.

[ATAG_Doc]

We don't elect UN members. But we distroy the careers of those that try to allow them to govern US. And self-preservation is always a strong motive.

[Wolf_Rider]

USA gun laws are similar to Canada and other countries but the USA has a far higher gun murder rate. This would suggest that the problem lies with the people or the society in wich they live rather then the laws.



Bingo! you nailed it

Readers may also notice Obama banging on about AK47's (one of the, or probably, the most effective easy to use and easily replenished weapon that ever was), not the AR15's which are more likely to be aquired.





"Take away guns and people will resort to swords...
Take them way and people will use knives and clubs...
Take them away and they'll resort to knitting needles.
Take them away and they'll head out to the garden shed and fashion something up"

[Sternjaeger II]

I'm sorry Bewolf, but you're sending postcards of wisdom from Utopia.

Your thinking should be valid for armies as well then, right? They're meant to do what they do (defending/attacking) by means of killing other people.

Are you ready to give up on the right do defend your freedom in name of a "no guns" policy?

As for the kids that find the keys to the locker etc... they're very rare cases, mainly because wise gun owners teach the responsibility and the risks related to firearms to their kids from a very young age.

[ATAG_Doc]

The entire disarm society thing only serves those who are in power. Nothing more. Europe just has to take whatever comes because there is nothing beyond holding a cardboard sign with a tired slogan written on it. Other than that that's pretty much it. Tomorrow is another day.

[ATAG_Doc]

ehh, I read the tit bit from google on this and it seems Fins make the best shooters. Doubt there will be many British shooters as you need expressed permission from the home office to have a rifle.

This guy should have entered:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simo_H%C3%A4yh%C3%A4

Outstanding!!!"

[ATAG_Doc]

I am not worried about the guy getting his background checked and then a license. I am afraid of the children discovering the keys to the weapons locker, the guy having to sell his weapon for liquidity reasons on the black market, the guy robbing the house of the one having a machine gun lying around, the guy losing his job and wife having a blackout moment. The list goes on.

Your fears are really over the top and extreme. Akin to the boogyman. Lets change this up for what likely would happen to you or someone you love. I fear someone giving their teanage daughter a new iPhone and they will be texting while driving and end up killing someone. Now that has a far greater chance of coming to fruition.

[Bewolf]

I'm sorry Bewolf, but you're sending postcards of wisdom from Utopia.

Your thinking should be valid for armies as well then, right? They're meant to do what they do (defending/attacking) by means of killing other people.

Are you ready to give up on the right do defend your freedom in name of a "no guns" policy?

As for the kids that find the keys to the locker etc... they're very rare cases, mainly because wise gun owners teach the responsibility and the risks related to firearms to their kids from a very young age.

I suppose most of Europe and lots of places in Asia are indeed Utopia then. And have been for decades, if not centuries. That argument of yours makes me wonder how much you actually know about the world and what amount of brain capacity you put into the question why those differences exist.

No idea how your army argument comes in here or how to understand it, though.
Btw, the right to defend your freedom. In all these debates it is all about right this, right that, like in a store where you pack in what you like best.
But with every right there are responsebilities. You can't claim the one and dismiss the other. And responsebility is something most people shun these days. That starts with "**** the environment as long as I can drive my SUV, i have the RIGHT to be an ass, f*ck the government and the UN!" and ends with the dead guy next door.

Now that is certainly overexxegerated. But if only one person out of ten is irresponsible and it moves to having guns, then this one is already one too many. I am sorry about the 9 others (to whom I also belong, btw, I am actually quite fond of weapons). But having weapons for purely fun reasons, as the defense argument is a self fullfilling prophecy given the huge amounts of weapons availabe on the black market due to the easy to get legal market, is that very same irresponsebility I am talking about.

[Bewolf]

Your fears are really over the top and extreme. Akin to the boogyman. Lets change this up for what likely would happen to you or someone you love. I fear someone giving their teanage daughter a new iPhone and they will be texting while driving and end up killing someone. Now that has a far greater chance of coming to fruition.

Is it? Then once again I will point to the stastics in regards to weapon related killings. There must be a reason for that. I am sincerely willing to listen to your arguments here.

BTW, using cell phones in a car over here is banned for exactly that reason.

[mazex]

Just so you can be placed at ease and the discussion can stay civil just make sure that you accept it is what it is today and the free ownership of firearms to its citizens will always be apart of the fabric of the United States. It will not change. It cannot. Its a right that isn't conveyed by a government but before it. A charter of negative liberties that state what they cannot not do. And the right shall not be infringed. So its like a tattoo it isn't going away.

At the time when the US laws where written most European countries had similar weapon legislation too (or rather lack of), and there was some kind of a gun in most cabins in Sweden too in the 19:th century. In those days most people where farmers far out in the woods with wild animals roaming around and no formalized police force to keep up law and order, so people had to be able to defend themselves in some way. The Royal Mail postmen in Sweden where required by law to carry revolvers as a defense against highwaymen and wild animals up until around 1920...

Before 1945 there was no license required for firearms even though you had to register purchased guns from 1934, and they where sold in every hardware store just like in the United States today.

Thank god we have moved on to a civilized society where firearms are not needed any more for protection in the woods and we resolve arguments verbally or written, and at the extreme in a court instead of pointing guns at each other or bang our neighbors in the head with large sticks ;) But of course, in the developing world that is not the case today so the AK-47:s are still needed for self protection... And in the good ole USA of course!

[ATAG_Doc]

BTW, using cell phones in a car over here is banned for exactly that reason.

I do not believe you. And the reason why I don't is because I know reprobates live there and here as well as here. They don't care about laws. People are not program code they have a brain and don't use it. No amount of technology will ever eliminate the idiot.

[Bewolf]

I do not believe you. And the reason why I don't is because I know reprobates live there and here as well as here. They don't care about laws. People are not program code they have a brain and don't use it. No amount of technology will ever eliminate the idiot.

What you believe or not seriously has not much of an effect on executive procedures here, really. You are right, lots of people do not care about the law, but lots of people also get pulled out of traffic and fined for doing so. The law is there as much as you want to ignore it.

But I agree especially with your last sentence. No amount of technology will ever eliminate the idiot. And that exactly is the reason why I do not want to give him a firearm. It really comes down to that. As many responsible peole there are, that one person spoils it all for the rest. And opposite to a car, which has a real use in daily life, guns simply do not have a purpose, let alone a constructive purpose, important enough to just give them away.

[CaptainDoggles]

Are you ready to give up on the right do defend your freedom in name of a "no guns" policy?

Do Americans actually believe the government is going to come knocking at any moment and take their "freedom"?

This is why you have a criminal justice system, with courts and the concept of due process.

Using your guns when the FBI comes calling is just going to get you killed.

[ATAG_Doc]

This is why I love having our own country that does 1 thing the other does another. This is why I despise all being the same. It's like all the same. Boring. I would love to participate in a trade of those that want these to be given an opportunity to own a firearm and free from big taxes to migrate from there to over here here. And in trade we will send you 100 that do want firearms out of the homes of citizens and big government. I would take that trade in a 100 to 1 ratio with you. Then we all could be happy. :)

[Sternjaeger II]

This will never end. I think both sides have good reasons (and not so good ones), what it doesn't change though is that if given the choice, I'd rather be the one on the right side of the barrel, and a gun ban should be unilateral to be truly effective. Once again, good luck trying to police that, and not just in the US.

What scares me is the deluded individuals who really think that they live in a perfect society where things couldn't get out of hands and very fast too.. wake up fellas, history is but a wheel that turns and turns, and same things keep on happening on and on and on...

[Sternjaeger II]

Do Americans actually believe the government is going to come knocking at any moment and take their "freedom"?

This is why you have a criminal justice system, with courts and the concept of due process.

Using your guns when the FBI comes calling is just going to get you killed.

you say that to this lady, and many others like her

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oklahoma-widow-18-shoots-kills-intruder-in-home-2444936.php

"criminal justice system" and "process" aren't probably the best deterrents for such a scenario, isn't it? I'm sure that something like "burglary", "rape" and probably "murder" would have been the actual scenario, had she not had guns to defend herself and her baby..

[ATAG_Doc]

Do Americans actually believe the government is going to come knocking at any moment and take their "freedom"?

This is why you have a criminal justice system, with courts and the concept of due process.

Using your guns when the FBI comes calling is just going to get you killed.

It doesn't come in such obvious ways. It's incremental and hidden in an unrelated bill. That's how it's done. There will never be a town gathering for re-education and by the way bring your firearm with you thing. That's a fail. It is much more sophisticated than this. But trust me they hate the VOTER and would love not to have to please the electorate. I mean you know they are exempt from the laws they pass don't you? Doesn't that seem a little odd or not? It's the truth they are exempt from their laws.

[mazex]

This will never end. I think both sides have good reasons (and not so good ones), what it doesn't change though is that if given the choice, I'd rather be the one on the right side of the barrel, and a gun ban should be unilateral to be truly effective. Once again, good luck trying to police that, and not just in the US.

What scares me is the deluded individuals who really think that they live in a perfect society where things couldn't get out of hands and very fast too.. wake up fellas, history is but a wheel that turns and turns, and same things keep on happening on and on and on...

Great sig you have there. It sure calmed me down :)

[Jaws2002]

The massacre in Norway was not supposed to happen, with their tough anti gun laws.
If there's a will, there's a way.
We were chopping eachother long before any firearms were around. If you think tht by banning the average guy from owning a firearm, you make the planet safer, you need to wake up and look around.

[Sternjaeger II]

Great sig you have there. It sure calmed me down :)

lol sarcasm is my forte ;) although the best sig ever was the animated gif from The Office that a folk on here had, that was priceless.

[CaptainDoggles]

It doesn't come in such obvious ways. It's incremental and hidden in an unrelated bill. That's how it's done. There will never be a town gathering for re-education and by the way bring your firearm with you thing. That's a fail. It is much more sophisticated than this.So where's the need to defend your freedom with a gun in this scenario? If they're not going to "come and get you" then I don't understand why you need a gun to protect yourself from the government. Wouldn't an engaged and informed electorate be the right tool for that job?

But trust me they hate the VOTER and would love not to have to please the electorate. I mean you know they are exempt from the laws they pass don't you? Doesn't that seem a little odd or not? It's the truth they are exempt from their laws.I have no clue what any of this means.

[BaronBonBaron]

you say that to this lady, and many others like her

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Oklahoma-widow-18-shoots-kills-intruder-in-home-2444936.php

"criminal justice system" and "process" aren't probably the best deterrents for such a scenario, isn't it? I'm sure that something like "burglary", "rape" and probably "murder" would have been the actual scenario, had she not had guns to defend herself and her baby..

Good for her for doing what she did!

"Its better to have a gun and not need it, then to need it and not have it."
Don't think this is true? Well just look at Switzerland.



And on a slightly different note:

On a national level more people in the US then ever are legally buying guns and violent crime is reduced.
And yet Chicago, the city with the strictest handgun laws in the US, now has one of the highest murder rates, and high crime too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/

[ATAG_Doc]

So where's the need to defend your freedom with a gun in this scenario? If they're not going to "come and get you" then I don't understand why you need a gun to protect yourself from the government. Wouldn't an engaged and informed electorate be the right tool for that job?

I have no clue what any of this means.

It's not there today to protect us from it it isn't necessary but it still our right in the BILL OF RIGHTS to own them. Means there isn't anything on this earth that will change it. Nothing. And I mean it sincerely. Without any malice there is nothing humanly that can be done to change it. You have a better chance of this game being fixed in your unborn kids life than changing that. If anything its getting more liberal and catching on. Record numbers of people have permits to carry legally. And those who hate it their kids will carry. It's bigger than the iPad man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCs6RK4HxMU

[senseispcc]

.
Could you verify how many people are killed by guns in Tokio or London where guns are prohibited and compare this with New York please?

[CaptainDoggles]

And on a slightly different note:

On a national level more people in the US then ever are legally buying guns and violent crime is reduced.
And yet Chicago, the city with the strictest handgun laws in the US, now has one of the highest murder rates, and high crime too.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/18/gun-ownership-up-crime-down/

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Anyone can use any statistic to support any opinion they want. Correlation does not imply causation.

[CaptainDoggles]

It's not there today to protect us from it it isn't necessary but it still our right in the BILL OF RIGHTS to own them. Means there isn't anything on this earth that will change it. Nothing. And I mean it sincerely. Without any malice there is nothing humanly that can be done to change it. You have a better chance of this game being fixed in your unborn kids life than changing that. If anything its getting more liberal and catching on. Record numbers of people have permits to carry legally. And those who hate it their kids will carry. It's bigger than the iPad man.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCs6RK4HxMU

Oh, I believe you that nothing will change it. But it sounds like we both agree that you don't need a gun to defend yourself from the government coming to get you.

[CaptainDoggles]

Also I think your video broke the page.

[Bewolf]

This will never end. I think both sides have good reasons (and not so good ones), what it doesn't change though is that if given the choice, I'd rather be the one on the right side of the barrel, and a gun ban should be unilateral to be truly effective. Once again, good luck trying to police that, and not just in the US.

What scares me is the deluded individuals who really think that they live in a perfect society where things couldn't get out of hands and very fast too.. wake up fellas, history is but a wheel that turns and turns, and same things keep on happening on and on and on...

Sure, things can always move the DoDo way. The world may end tomorrow. We may have civil unrest, civil war, terrorist attacks en masse, all possible. And we all know that ppl are evil and just want to have a go at you anyways, so better be prepared to beat them back, it can happen any minute now.

Some more utopian postcards just for you, Stern. A society is what you make out of it, a melange of opinions and stances of all people within this society, influencing itself through all levels simply by interaction.
And the more people within that given society distrust each other, the more people will take over that view in return. That is the starting point where societies start moving to the bottom. Also a little reminder of history, when you look for actual root causes for the developments you warn about. It simply does not work out if you see bad people all around.

As I said, it is a self fullfilling prophecy.

That said, I just wished some people were as keen to prepare for other eventualities with just as much energy as they do for owning guns for the coming collaps.

[Outlaw]

I am not worried about the guy getting his background checked and then a license. I am afraid of the children discovering the keys to the weapons locker, the guy having to sell his weapon for liquidity reasons on the black market, the guy robbing the house of the one having a machine gun lying around, the guy losing his job and wife having a blackout moment. The list goes on.


You miss the forest for the trees. The point is that fully automatic weapons are a statistical non-entity in crime. Harping on the subject, as some do, merely highlights one's ignorance of the true situation


Well, now we know, if a criminal uses a fully automatic weapon, he will be the one to end up dead. I am sure other criminals learned that lesson and won't ever repeat that.


See above.


Yeah, but with gun related killings in general.


Once again, forest for the trees. If absolute numbers are the only criteria for determining increased regulation then firearms should be relegated pretty low on the list.


And that is positive, why....? Most people here come out of an attack with a broken nose at best. Hardly with bullet holes. But then again, even the criminals here know they do not have to expect a gun when they enter a house, and in return do not feel the need to bring their own. Result...lots of people actually getting old, both victims and criminals, both having chances to actually tell stories to their grandchildren.


"Most people..."???? What about the ones that aren't in your, "most" category? What about the ones that were killed, raped, permanently injured, scarred (emotionally or physically), etc?

I don't feel the need to die so that, "most", people won't.

If you want to be a victim, fine, that's your choice, but don't force me to be one.


Well, that is the problem with firearms. They are made to kill. That is their only and original purpose. Now when someone gets killed...well, wouldn't have seen that coming.


Continuing the trend...forest for the trees.

My only point is that the statistics are purposely skewed for shock value and the studies are purposely designed to mislead.

On a related note, including adult suicides is so beyond asinine it can't even be described. If an adult wants to off themselves, that's their decision and they should be allowed to do so.


If you are ague gun crime only, yes. If you argue common sense of so many households in a country that hardly has a concept of integrated society and the responsebilities coming with having free access to firearms, things look a bit different. This might work in Switzerland, a country that is on one page society wise and actually is amall enough that people get to know each other. But even there you have your eventual madman.

I think it's pretty obvious that I was arguing gun crime only. Regardless, common sense should not have to rely on lies and misrepresentation.

IMHO, lies and misrepresentation should be left to the ignorant morons (on both sides of gun control).

--Outlaw.

[tk471138]

What does a civilian need a machine gun for???

we need machine guns to kill cops and other govt "authorities" who intend on infringing on our rights, or the rights of others....


i mean how are the people of the usa supposed to maintain a militia when we arent allowed to use half the arms available....

[Jaws2002]

.
Could you verify how many people are killed by guns in Tokio or London where guns are prohibited and compare this with New York please?

You could compare those with Switzerland? They have guns too, more per capitl than the Americans. How come the swiss don't kill eachother by the thousands? We have bebetween 20 and 25 million legal firearms in Canada for a population of 30 millions. How come we don't slaughter eachother?

[Zorin]

You miss the forest for the trees. The point is that fully automatic weapons are a statistical non-entity in crime. Harping on the subject, as some do, merely highlights one's ignorance of the true situation



See above.



Once again, forest for the trees. If absolute numbers are the only criteria for determining increased regulation then firearms should be relegated pretty low on the list.



"Most people..."???? What about the ones that aren't in your, "most" category? What about the ones that were killed, raped, permanently injured, scarred (emotionally or physically), etc?

I don't feel the need to die so that, "most", people won't.

If you want to be a victim, fine, that's your choice, but don't force me to be one.



Continuing the trend...forest for the trees.

My only point is that the statistics are purposely skewed for shock value and the studies are purposely designed to mislead.

On a related note, including adult suicides is so beyond asinine it can't even be described. If an adult wants to off themselves, that's their decision and they should be allowed to do so.



I think it's pretty obvious that I was arguing gun crime only. Regardless, common sense should not have to rely on lies and misrepresentation.

IMHO, lies and misrepresentation should be left to the ignorant morons (on both sides of gun control).

--Outlaw.

Wow, you are one scared guy. Best example yet why your societiy is in shambles if it prodcues people who only feel save if they can cling to a firearm.

[Zorin]

we need machine guns to kill cops and other govt "authorities" who intend on infringing on our rights, or the rights of others....


i mean how are the people of the usa supposed to maintain a militia when we arent allowed to use half the arms available....

Guess I will better give the FBI a call now.

[Bewolf]

You miss the forest for the trees. The point is that fully automatic weapons are a statistical non-entity in crime. Harping on the subject, as some do, merely highlights one's ignorance of the true situation


Fair enough, but has not been the focus anyways. The problem comes with firearms in general, by their very nature.


Once again, forest for the trees. If absolute numbers are the only criteria for determining increased regulation then firearms should be relegated pretty low on the list.

Which in return begs the question, why the heck are there so many people bound to kill each other in the US? That is, if you do not want to be compared to third worls countries.


"Most people..."???? What about the ones that aren't in your, "most" category? What about the ones that were killed, raped, permanently injured, scarred (emotionally or physically), etc?

Those ones are still not killed, raped, permanently injured or scarred by use or threat of firearms, which still gives them hellova lot more chances to fight back or avoid it all together.


I don't feel the need to die so that, "most", people won't.


Who does? But even if there are lots of ways to threaten, injure or kill people, not a single one is so easy and effortless as is a gun. And worse, a criminal with a firearm can be the weakest of guys, a guy you personally would have no problem getting down. Yet this weapon in his hands equalizes everything. You can be as trained or ready as you want to be, no chance here.

Why does this matter? Because in most cases, you will be unprepared when faced with a gun. So going to your locker room at home and take it out or even trying to get it out of your holster won't help you much anyways in such a situtation.


If you want to be a victim, fine, that's your choice, but don't force me to be one.


See above. I can at least define what kind of victim I am. One with a chance or one without. Reality is not Hollywood, with clear sides and enemies whom you are prepared to welcome propperly.

Or to use a propper example. Most fighters in WW2 were not shot down in dogfights. Most never saw their attackers. So let's leave the rightnousness at the doorsteps, okay?


My only point is that the statistics are purposely skewed for shock value and the studies are purposely designed to mislead.

Possible. That is why I rely on gut feeling when it comes to issues like that. And that gut feelings tells me that there are underlying reasons for the conditions in the US compared to other western nations. Guns may not be the root of that, but they sure fuel the results. Usually using gasoline to put out a fire has ...mixed results.


On a related note, including adult suicides is so beyond asinine it can't even be described. If an adult wants to off themselves, that's their decision and they should be allowed to do so.


Agreed.


I think it's pretty obvious that I was arguing gun crime only. Regardless, common sense should not have to rely on lies and misrepresentation.

Agreed as well.

IMHO, lies and misrepresentation should be left to the ignorant morons (on both sides of gun control).

--Outlaw.

And yep. Though it also requires an open mind "towards" both sides.

Because, you see, I actually do believe that the US, in it's current form, won't be able to move away from guns. They created a sitation that is not changeable over night. Criminals would run amok without civil gun owenership.
However, to actually argue for guns as a matter of principle instead out of temporary nessecity is what makes me wonder so much.

[tk471138]

So where's the need to defend your freedom with a gun in this scenario? If they're not going to "come and get you" then I don't understand why you need a gun to protect yourself from the government.


yes cuz the cops never come to someones house trying to get in with out a warrant....

yea cuz people are NEVER falsely arrested (kidnapped)

yea cuz post katrina the govt was doing all good things besides the women who were raped by the New orleans PD and the looting that the PD engaged in and the GUN CONFISCATIONS that troops and Police departments engaged in....what else...o yea they went in to some old ladies house and basicly beat her up and took her away cuz she had the audacity to have an unloaded revolver....


what about the guy who was shot simply because he answered the door at 130 am and the police immediately shot him even though they were at the wrong house, for carrying out the warrant....

ussually their are about 15-20 documented acts of police misconduct and criminality a day, and most of these go unpunished....but yea we dont need to defend ourselves from criminals in govt....




"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)



“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson " (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

[Oldschool61]

USA gun laws are similar to Canada and other countries but the USA has a far higher gun murder rate. This would suggest that the problem lies with the people or the society in wich they live rather then the laws.

I find it amazing listening to the pro gun arguments. The attitude that gun restrictions are an afront to civil liberties to me sounds like utter madness. It's usually the same people that claim that universal healthcare is an attack on civil liberty! madness!

The only other countries that have high gun ownership and death rate are places in the developing world that suffer from high poverty and very corrupt or non existant government like somalia, afghanistan and south Africa. USA is interesting as it's a developed country and should have moved on by now but in some ways it hasn't. Personally i think that lack of robust health and welfare infastructure and the huge wealth gap may have something to do with it. For a rich country it's still very much dog eat dog.

Personally I would not want to live in a country where everyone felt the need to own firearms.

The top 5% are rich not the average american. Yes its out of balance. We are on our way to being the newest third world country. We need to be more like canada and europe..social democracies.

[tk471138]

Guess I will better give the FBI a call now.

see my post son its LEGAL to defend your self against law enforcement ( including the fbi) legal precedent states this.....a cop in the wrong is no different than a common criminal and can be treated as such....


or i guess its a good thing that cops can cuff women and rape them in the back seat of the cruiser...i mean why would anyone want to defend their loved ones from that..(real case happened not to long ago)



i guess you are they type of person who when the burglar comes into their home....you show them where your daughter is...


fact of the matter is their is a growing number of unelected bureaucrats who work for various agencies who are making and enforcing laws upon the people...you have organic food coops and those who produce raw milk (even the amish) who are victims of highly armed law enforcement raiding their establishments....you can see police with their guns drawn point them at fruit and vegetables as if they were the Taliban....


the police state is here and that is why we have the second amendment....



why killling cops and other govt employees in defense of freedom is a good thing AND legal....


"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

[Outlaw]

Wow, you are one scared guy. Best example yet why your societiy is in shambles if it prodcues people who only feel save if they can cling to a firearm.

LOL.

I hate to be cliche, but...I'm not afraid at all.

Now back to reality...

My society is not "in shambles" by any stretch of the imagination. While I have used a firearm to protect myself before I do not carry one on my person. I am neither afraid at work, at home, or at any point in between. There are segments of my society that are more dangerous than others but you could say that about any society.

That being said, I do not delude myself into believing that I am completely safe from any eventuality. Nor do I take kindly to the totally stupid delusion that if the criminals don't have guns then I will be safe. It takes a staggering lack of cognitive thought processes to come to that conclusion. Thousands of people are killed and permanently injured each year with nary a gun in sight.

To that end, I would like to be as prepared as possible for the unthinkable.

As I said before, choose to be a victim if you like but don't force me to follow suit. Myself and 3 others would be dead today if the anti-gun lobby had their way.


--Outlaw.

[KG26_Alpha]

As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.

Inner London housing estates tenants are prisoners at night too frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England.

There's nothing to be celebrated with gun ownership, if you have to own one its for the purpose of killing someone no matter what the circumstances are.

Here's a brave gang that paralysed a 5 year old recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/gang-guilty-shooting-girl-paralysed

Yea guns are cool huh.....................





.

[Zorin]

see my post son its LEGAL to defend your self against law enforcement ( including the fbi) legal precedent states this.....a cop in the wrong is no different than a common criminal and can be treated as such....


or i guess its a good thing that cops can cuff women and rape them in the back seat of the cruiser...i mean why would anyone want to defend their loved ones from that..(real case happened not to long ago)



i guess you are they type of person who when the burglar comes into their home....you show them where your daughter is...


fact of the matter is their is a growing number of unelected bureaucrats who work for various agencies who are making and enforcing laws upon the people...you have organic food coops and those who produce raw milk (even the amish) who are victims of highly armed law enforcement raiding their establishments....you can see police with their guns drawn point them at fruit and vegetables as if they were the Taliban....


the police state is here and that is why we have the second amendment....



why killling cops and other govt employees in defense of freedom is a good thing AND legal....


"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)

So you rather kill a man than see him stand trial?

Maybe you'd better been born back in the day when men still lived in caves, as all social developments of the past thousands of years mean nothing to you.

[tk471138]

As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.

Inner London housing estates house tenants prisoners at night to frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England.

There's nothing to be celebrated with gun ownership, if you have to own one its for the purpose of killing someone no matter what the circumstances are.

Here's a brave gang that paralysed a 5 year old recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/gang-guilty-shooting-girl-paralysed

Yea guns are cool huh.....................





.



so its bad when a citizen (read: slave) actually defends themselves...but when a cop has to "defend" themselves (and when cops defend themselves is usually at a NON-threat) is a good thing....


enjoy your nanny state where you cant even legitimately defend yourself with your fists with out being arrested...

apparently people get arrested for showing a group of hoodlums intent on breaking in to your home a knife through a window.....cuz that actually happened over there...enjoy slavery...

us "freedom loving" americans will never tolerate the crap that has occurred in your country....freedom is a dangerous endeavor...im sorry you can not handle freedom



also if guns need to be made illegal...what should happen to cars...they kill MANY more people than guns....

[tk471138]

So you rather kill a man than see him stand trial?

Maybe you'd better been born back in the day when men still lived in caves, as all social developments of the past thousands of years mean nothing to you.

when certain men see trial, ussually cops and others who are affiliated with govt they are given preferential treatment and are not held to the same standard that the rest of the people (slaves) are held to....

see are all supposed to be created equal...this does not mean we will have equal ability...what this means is that we are equal under the law....but instead we (in the usa) live in a fedual system, where certain classes (law enforcement, other govt officials eric holder) are above certain laws that the people are beholden to....

[nearmiss]

As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.

Inner London housing estates house tenants prisoners at night to frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England.

There's nothing to be celebrated with gun ownership, if you have to own one its for the purpose of killing someone no matter what the circumstances are.

Here's a brave gang that paralysed a 5 year old recently.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/26/gang-guilty-shooting-girl-paralysed

Yea guns are cool huh.....................



Personally, I like to hunt. Secondly, I have guns because I want as big a stick as the crooks have. No automatic weapons.

The reason gun control hype keeps popping up in civilized society is because the radicalized thinkers believe they can fix large segments of society.

The media is nothing more or less than a business making money from advertisers. The media no longer gives a whit whether you have a gun or not. The media will talk about anything that keeps their advertisers spending money with them. Sadly, it is no longer about journalism or reporting ethics. The wrong people nowadays on the media, and they are the worst of the money grubbing lot imaginable.

The best media is youtube or other internet sites. At least you can get to the truth eventually. If you watch the youtube with all the replays from mainstream media you just get fed the verbal lying goolash they want you to have.

[CaptainDoggles]

yes cuz the cops never come to someones house trying to get in with out a warrant....

yea cuz people are NEVER falsely arrested (kidnapped)

yea cuz post katrina the govt was doing all good things besides the women who were raped by the New orleans PD and the looting that the PD engaged in and the GUN CONFISCATIONS that troops and Police departments engaged in....what else...o yea they went in to some old ladies house and basicly beat her up and took her away cuz she had the audacity to have an unloaded revolver....


what about the guy who was shot simply because he answered the door at 130 am and the police immediately shot him even though they were at the wrong house, for carrying out the warrant....

ussually their are about 15-20 documented acts of police misconduct and criminality a day, and most of these go unpunished....but yea we dont need to defend ourselves from criminals in govt....




"Citizens may resist unlawful arrest to the point of taking an arresting
officer's life if necessary." Plummer v. State, 136 Ind. 306. This
premise was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in the
case: John Bad Elk v. U.S., 177 U.S. 529. The Court stated: "Where the
officer is killed in the course of the disorder which naturally
accompanies an attempted arrest that is resisted, the law looks with
very different eyes upon the transaction, when the officer had the right
to make the arrest, from what it does if the officer had no right. What
may be murder in the first case might be nothing more than manslaughter
in the other, or the facts might show that no offense had been
committed."

"An arrest made with a defective warrant, or one issued without
affidavit, or one that fails to allege a crime is within jurisdiction,
and one who is being arrested, may resist arrest and break away. lf the
arresting officer is killed by one who is so resisting, the killing will
be no more than an involuntary manslaughter." Housh v. People, 75 111.
491; reaffirmed and quoted in State v. Leach, 7 Conn. 452; State v.
Gleason, 32 Kan. 245; Ballard v. State, 43 Ohio 349; State v Rousseau,
241 P. 2d 447; State v. Spaulding, 34 Minn. 3621.

"When a person, being without fault, is in a place where he has a right
to be, is violently assaulted, he may, without retreating, repel by
force, and if, in the reasonable exercise of his right of self defense,
his assailant is killed, he is justified." Runyan v. State, 57 Ind. 80;
Miller v. State, 74 Ind. 1.

"These principles apply as well to an officer attempting to make an
arrest, who abuses his authority and transcends the bounds thereof by
the use of unnecessary force and violence, as they do to a private
individual who unlawfully uses such force and violence." Jones v. State,
26 Tex. App. I; Beaverts v. State, 4 Tex. App. 1 75; Skidmore v. State,
43 Tex. 93, 903.

"An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to
be restrained of his liberty has the same right to use force in
defending himself as he would in repelling any other assault and
battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77, 72 ATL. 260).

"Each person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such a case,
the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer
and may be resisted by the use of force, as in self- defense." (State v.
Mobley, 240 N.C. 476, 83 S.E. 2d 100).

"One may come to the aid of another being unlawfully arrested, just as
he may where one is being assaulted, molested, raped or kidnapped. Thus
it is not an offense to liberate one from the unlawful custody of an
officer, even though he may have submitted to such custody, without
resistance." (Adams v. State, 121 Ga. 16, 48 S.E. 910).

"Story affirmed the right of self-defense by persons held illegally. In
his own writings, he had admitted that 'a situation could arise in which
the checks-and-balances principle ceased to work and the various
branches of government concurred in a gross usurpation.' There would be
no usual remedy by changing the law or passing an amendment to the
Constitution, should the oppressed party be a minority. Story concluded,
'If there be any remedy at all ... it is a remedy never provided for by
human institutions.' That was the 'ultimate right of all human beings in
extreme cases to resist oppression, and to apply force against ruinous
injustice.'" (From Mutiny on the Amistad by Howard Jones, Oxford
University Press, 1987, an account of the reading of the decision in the
case by Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court.

As for grounds for arrest: "The carrying of arms in a quiet, peaceable,
and orderly manner, concealed on or about the person, is not a breach of
the peace. Nor does such an act of itself, lead to a breach of the
peace." (Wharton's Criminal and Civil Procedure, 12th Ed., Vol.2: Judy
v. Lashley, 5 W. Va. 628, 41 S.E. 197)



“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” Thomas Jefferson " (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

Wow. I'm glad I don't live where you live.

[Bewolf]

so its bad when a citizen (read: slave) actually defends themselves...but when a cop has to "defend" themselves (and when cops defend themselves is usually at a NON-threat) is a good thing....


enjoy your nanny state where you cant even legitimately defend yourself with your fists with out being arrested...

apparently people get arrested for showing a group of hoodlums intent on breaking in to your home a knife through a window.....cuz that actually happened over there...enjoy slavery...

us "freedom loving" americans will never tolerate the crap that has occurred in your country....freedom is a dangerous endeavor...im sorry you can not handle freedom



also if guns need to be made illegal...what should happen to cars...they kill MANY more people than guns....

Oh man. You guys talk about freedom so easily, throwing empty shells around like confetti while having zero expirience what lack of freedom and fighting for it actually means. And no, Obamacare does not make the US a dictatorship.

[Whizkid]

"And now for something completely different", could you tell us a little about that beautiful Corvette that's your avatar, Outlaw?

[Zorin]

Oh man. You guys talk about freedom so easily, throwing empty shells around like confetti while having zero expirience what lack of freedom and fighting for it actually means. And no, Obamacare does not make the US a dictatorship.

In their eyes it does, which is just pittyful.

I was literally lying on the floor laughing when I saw protesters say that Obamacare would be the start of communism in the US. Seriously, how delusional can peopel be?

[ATAG_Doc]

Wish I could afford my own heavy artillery battery for pig eradication.

[tk471138]

In their eyes it does, which is just pittyful.

I was literally lying on the floor laughing when I saw protesters say that Obamacare would be the start of communism in the US. Seriously, how delusional can peopel be?

but thats the big push....the idea that we are all one big collective or commune where individual A personal actions (what they eat for instance) has an effect on person B somehow and thus person A's and every one else needs the govt to regulate what we can eat since a few people make the argument that cuz their actions impact us so we must regulate it....



we are turning in to a society where the rights of the individual is taking a back seat to the rights of the collective....when in fact in the american system its the rights of the individual that is supposed to be protected....

THAT IS COMMUNISM...and its been a long time comming....


when an external influence can force you to buy a product that you may not need or want....how is that freedom....

can i get the govt to regulate that every person needs to buy cliffs of dover....cuz if everyone spent money on it the devs would have more resources to work with.....


or maybe i should regulate that every home in america needs to hire someone to do lawn care, cuz its dangerous, and thus only professionals should be ablet to do it....that would surely help my business out....

[ATAG_Doc]

Real gun control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGC1tjHCSVE

[nearmiss]

Let us keep this on topic please.

Start a new thead for other discussions.

Thanks

[KG26_Alpha]

Let us keep this on topic please.

Start a new thead for other discussions.

Thanks

I'll delete everything after the first two posts as off topic :)

[KG26_Alpha]

Real gun control.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGC1tjHCSVE

Thats vulgarity personified.

Pathetic.

Add rock track helicopter gun a defenceless animal ................ yeahhhaaaaaahhhhhhh

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Ouch I fell out of the forum...................




.

[ATAG_Doc]

Thats vulgarity personified.

Pathetic.

Add rock track helicopter gun a defenceless animal ................ yeahhhaaaaaahhhhhhh

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Ouch I fell out of the forum...................



The reason this happens is they are an ecological disaster and must be eradicated from the planet.
But what a deflection shot!

[Sternjaeger II]

you see, there are so many realities related to guns! I come from a family of hunters but I've never been one myself, yet some people are into hunting, others into clay pigeon shooting, target shooting, dynamic range etc...

it's a multi-faceted reality, and the sweeping statements that all gun enthusiasts are deluded nutters etc... that really worry me, it's like saying that your version of freedom is better than mine...

As for the hog shooting, 5.56? If you really have to shoot at hogs from a chopper (?) you're better off with a sporterized AK in 7.62..

[Sternjaeger II]

lol what's happening to the banana forum? Why the formatting is all bonkers?

[rhinomonkey]

but thats the big push....the idea that we are all one big collective or commune where individual A personal actions (what they eat for instance) has an effect on person B somehow and thus person A's and every one else needs the govt to regulate what we can eat since a few people make the argument that cuz their actions impact us so we must regulate it....



we are turning in to a society where the rights of the individual is taking a back seat to the rights of the collective....when in fact in the american system its the rights of the individual that is supposed to be protected....

THAT IS COMMUNISM...and its been a long time comming....


when an external influence can force you to buy a product that you may not need or want....how is that freedom....

can i get the govt to regulate that every person needs to buy cliffs of dover....cuz if everyone spent money on it the devs would have more resources to work with.....


or maybe i should regulate that every home in america needs to hire someone to do lawn care, cuz its dangerous, and thus only professionals should be ablet to do it....that would surely help my business out....


Seriously, do you really believe that nonsense? universal healthcare will not lead to communism! Just goes to show the level of brain washing that the US has had to suffer due to a string of right wing governments.

Most of Europe has universal state healthcare and are far from communist. The UK has had a national health service since 1948 and has never come even close to being a communist country. The Health service in the US is pitiful compared to the rest of the developed world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Overall_system_ef fectiveness_compared_to_other_countries

A communist country has a 100% planned economy which means the state decides the level of demand rather then the free market. Introducing universal healthcare is not going to tear down the very fabric of the US market led economy, in fact it may help as a large proportion of bankrupsy in the US is due to not being able to meet healthcare costs.

Communism usually comes hand in hand with a brutal totalitarian regime. I think the USA is in no danger of turning into that kind of state.

[Outlaw]

"And now for something completely different", could you tell us a little about that beautiful Corvette that's your avatar, Outlaw?

Thanks WK...

It's an all matching numbers 1973 big block (454cid), 4 speed Muncie M21 close ratio transmission, factory AC, PB, and PS.

She's not the most rare or desirable in terms of collectibles, but, '73 was the only year with the chrome rear end and plastic front end which is the one I prefer.

She runs great but has a slight exhaust manifold leak on the driver's side that needs a new gasket. I take her out for short little trips here and there just to keep the dry rot away. She's not show quality but I don't believe in show cars, I believe in driver cars!

--Outlaw.

PS
Just to keep it on the topic of shooting, the firearm is under the driver's seat.

[Sternjaeger II]

PS
Just to keep it on the topic of shooting, the firearm is under the driver's seat.

lol is that legal in your neck of the woods? :-)

[tk471138]

Seriously, do you really believe that nonsense? universal healthcare will not lead to communism! Just goes to show the level of brain washing that the US has had to suffer due to a string of right wing governments.

Most of Europe has universal state healthcare and are far from communist. The UK has had a national health service since 1948 and has never come even close to being a communist country. The Health service in the US is pitiful compared to the rest of the developed world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_the_United_States#Overall_system_ef fectiveness_compared_to_other_countries

A communist country has a 100% planned economy which means the state decides the level of demand rather then the free market. Introducing universal healthcare is not going to tear down the very fabric of the US market led economy, in fact it may help as a large proportion of bankrupsy in the US is due to not being able to meet healthcare costs.

Communism usually comes hand in hand with a brutal totalitarian regime. I think the USA is in no danger of turning into that kind of state.




since everyone's health care is collectivized , that paves the way for govt to say...well since everyone pays for everyone else, the risky activities and habits that we have no longer affect the individual but now everyone in some way or another.... they will try and outlaw certain things...

next you will see people trying it limit salt or red meat intake, all because some people MIGHT get sick and incur health care costs, that since collectivized health care they can now argue effects everyone....


but yea who cares about protecting the rights of the individual....

its called a slippery slope....

enjoy living in your new collective...or commune...same thing really....

it is clear that you are vastly misinformed...you can start your research on the FDA and how corrupt and a joke that organization is...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0CQrL5nzwo&list=UUAZaby1ZmxU50mfBPnZY0nQ&index=10&feature=plcp

i mean i guess the problem with health care is ONLY the fact that we didnt have govt intervention....you know it has nothing to do with the FDA being run by drug companies and big agricultural companies....you know it has nothing to do with the influx of GMO crops that we ALL consume now...it has nothing to do with doctors largely abandoning the practice of charity care....O NO the real problem is that the federal govt has not gotten involved, cuz after all they fix everything they touch right....i guess its not a big deal that the FDA sends armed officers to harass and infringe on the rights of natural food growers and sellers...i guess its normal that the FDA would go after raw dairy products, and impose harsh sentences upon those who go against the regulations that the bureaucrats in the fda deem necessary (you know not congress the only governing body that is supposed to be able to create laws)

I guess its normal to go after cherry growers for simply linking to a peer reviewed study that shows cherries has certain benefits....

i guess its normal that supplement makers can not even post the truth about what the vitamins and minerals do for the body...

i guess its normal for a govt in a supposedly free society to force medicate its people through putting fluoride in the water(look at the cases of dental fluorosis in young people, i guess that is normal too)

i mean every time the federal govt gets involved in our lives it makes everything better right...just look at education and how much that has improved since the federal govt got involved...O WAIT the opposite is true....



its clear that most of you people have no idea how destructive the govt is ...it seems that the only thing you fools knows is what ever the mainstreammedia decides to tell you and nothing more...i guess you people cant be bothered to find the truth and would rather blindly put your faith in a bunch of people who want nothing more than to impose their will upon you and your family....


by the way Hitler Stallin Lennin Mao they would all agree gun control is good and gun control WORKS!!! just look at what those great men have done to their people..

[Sternjaeger II]

guys why don't you start another thread about healthcare?

[Bewolf]

since everyone's health care is collectivized , that paves the way for govt to say...well since everyone pays for everyone else, the risky activities and habits that we have no longer affect the individual but now everyone in some way or another.... they will try and outlaw certain things...

next you will see people trying it limit salt or red meat intake, all because some people MIGHT get sick and incur health care costs, that since collectivized health care they can now argue effects everyone....


but yea who cares about protecting the rights of the individual....

its called a slippery slope....

enjoy living in your new collective...or commune...same thing really....

Only if it is placed in government institutions. Over here it is run by independent non profit organisations, whose simple goal is too keep tarifs at exactly the heights produced by costs. This organisations may react to public pressure (for example currently they run a huge surpolus and there is the argument going if to give the money back to the people by loweing tarifs or safeguard the money for later times when the age problem will hit Germany harder) but else are indepdendent from governmental bodies. Alternativly you may chose private health insurance to your liking.

The only condition by the state is that you have healthcare to begin with.

Btw, the US already has the western worlds most expensive health care system. Per capita the US spends much more then any other country as well. THere is not a lack of money in your system. It is simply extremly inefficient. That happens when private companies start to run a business where they can make money out of exactly that.

If you broke that system of yours you could have much better conditions for the same money or the same for much less. Instead it's become a black and white question, to be or not to be.

[Outlaw]

lol is that legal in your neck of the woods? :-)

Yep. If it wasn't legal, I wouldn't be doing it!

--Outlaw.

PS
Please do not take the above statement to be a generalization with regard to any legal/illegal activities in which I may partake!

[tk471138]

Only if it is placed in government institutions. Over here it is run by independent non profit organisations, whose simple goal is too keep tarifs at exactly the heights produced by costs. This organisations may react to public pressure (for example currently they run a huge surpolus and there is the argument going if to give the money back to the people by loweing tarifs or safeguard the money for later times when the age problem will hit Germany harder) but else are indepdendent from governmental bodies. Alternativly you may chose private health insurance to your liking.

The only condition by the state is that you have healthcare to begin with.

Btw, the US already has the western worlds most expensive health care system. Per capita the US spends much more then any other country as well. THere is not a lack of money in your system. It is simply extremly inefficient. That happens when private companies start to run a business where they can make money out of exactly that.

If you broke that system of yours you could have much better conditions for the same money or the same for much less. Instead it's become a black and white question, to be or not to be.


what if i choose to NOT have health care as someone in my mid twenties and probably 10x healthier than most americans (i dont drink soda, i dont eat any fast food, i make my own food out of my own ingrediants, not processed premade foods. i dont drink alcohol in excess, and im physically active)

o wait i cant choose to NOT buy a product, otherwise some third party (govt) will impose a fine or tax on me....


whats the difference between a thief stealing your money and a govt taking your money (the fruit of your labor) through threat of violence....NOTHING

[von Pilsner]

i guess you are they type of person who when the burglar comes into their home....you show them where your daughter is...

You are way the hell out of line with that comment. What kind of monster would even post that shit?

[Al Schlageter]

what if i choose to NOT have health care as someone in my mid twenties and probably 10x healthier than most americans (i dont drink soda, i dont eat any fast food, i make my own food out of my own ingrediants, not processed premade foods. i dont drink alcohol in excess, and im physically active)

Then you will be asking for donations like the Colorado shooting victims and/or having the hospitals write off the $100,000s of expenses.

[BaronBonBaron]

0:46 is the last couple pages of this thread.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvv60iv_wjE&list=UU0jIctUPBK6lHw4AYnGHvCA&index=0&feature=plcp

[JG4_Helofly]

Very interesting discussion. Didn't know that political topics where allowed in this forum.

Bewolf wrote something very important imo: "And that is positive, why....? Most people here come out of an attack with a broken nose at best. Hardly with bullet holes. But then again, even the criminals here know they do not have to expect a gun when they enter a house, and in return do not feel the need to bring their own. Result...lots of people actually getting old, both victims and criminals, both having chances to actually tell stories to their grandchildren. "

The main problem I see with firearmes is escalation. That's what Bewolf wrote. When stuff like "home defense" with guns is common, then criminals will prepare for that and bring their own.
As a Swiss, I am always amazed how scared americans seem to be. Over here, I know not a single person who feels threatened to a point where he would feel the need for a gun in order to defend himself. The governement is also not seen as a threat.

[Zorin]

You are way the hell out of line with that comment. What kind of monster would even post that shit?

I haven't got a clue why he has not been banned yet.

[Zorin]

Very interesting discussion. Didn't know that political topics where allowed in this forum.

Bewolf wrote something very important imo: "And that is positive, why....? Most people here come out of an attack with a broken nose at best. Hardly with bullet holes. But then again, even the criminals here know they do not have to expect a gun when they enter a house, and in return do not feel the need to bring their own. Result...lots of people actually getting old, both victims and criminals, both having chances to actually tell stories to their grandchildren. "

The main problem I see with firearmes is escalation. That's what Bewolf wrote. When stuff like "home defense" with guns is common, then criminals will prepare for that and bring their own.
As a Swiss, I am always amazed how scared americans seem to be. Over here, I know not a single person who feels threatened to a point where he would feel the need for a gun in order to defend himself. The governement is also not seen as a threat.

Americans just don't get it. Don't even try to convince them, this thread has proven that they don't want to listen and learn from others, because they believe that their truth is the only true one. So sad...

[WTE_Galway]

what if i choose to NOT have health care as someone in my mid twenties and probably 10x healthier than most americans (i dont drink soda, i dont eat any fast food, i make my own food out of my own ingrediants, not processed premade foods. i dont drink alcohol in excess, and im physically active)


You see in America what is seen as "asserting your rights as an individual" is in most of the rest of the world seen as being a selfish arrogant pr*ck who does not contribute to society, and is out to get whatever they can get for themselves with no concern for the welfare of others.

Australia has had basic centralized health care for over 40 years and even the extreme right wing "big business is good, climate-change denying, White Australia, shoot illegal immigrants on sight" side of politics are not considering getting rid of it.

These discussions are pointless because the American world view is quite distorted and there is no common ground to even start a discussion. These sort of threads can only devolve into name calling and insults and really should be locked from the start.

[arthursmedley]

These discussions are pointless because the American world view is quite distorted and there is no common ground to even start a discussion. These sort of threads can only devolve into name calling and insults and really should be locked from the start.

Oh come on Galway. Of course you're right but wheres your sense of humour?
These threads are always great for a laugh.




You've got to laugh otherwise you realise your staring into the pit..........:(


In other news I see Mitt Romney has been winning friends and influencing people where ever he goes this week.:-P

[AndyJWest]

Americans just don't get it...

Um, no. There are plenty of rational Americans - but not here. They just have more sense than to spend their time telling the rest of the world why everything and everyone except them is wrong about everything, about how America is number one in absolutely everything, and about how there are black helicopters in the water supply and fluoride-smugglers infiltrating the DAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution) (though I may have got confused with the last bit). ;)

[Zorin]

Um, no. There are plenty of rational Americans - but not here. They just have more sense than to spend their time telling the rest of the world why everything and everyone except them is wrong about everything, about how America is number one in absolutely everything, and about how there are black helicopters in the water supply and fluoride-smugglers infiltrating the DAR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daughters_of_the_American_Revolution) (though I may have got confused with the last bit). ;)

I do realize that, while at the same instance pitting the fact that they are obviously in the minority.

[Zorin]

Oh come on Galway. Of course you're right but wheres your sense of humour?
These threads are always great for a laugh.




You've got to laugh otherwise you realise your staring into the pit..........:(


In other news I see Mitt Romney has been winning friends and influencing people where ever he goes this week.:-P

Well, seeing him sit all alone with his wife in the Aquatic center, waving a lonely American flag, was a pittyful sight indeed ;)

Thank god Michelle Obama knows how to have a good time and be a pleasent guess at such a venue.

[baronWastelan]

Sorry to go a bit off topic, but who's idea was it to encourage the Libyan people to arm themselves to fight and overthrow the Libyan government? Don't tell me it was the Nobel Peace Prize Holder President of the United States.

[MadBlaster]

Thats vulgarity personified.

Pathetic.

Add rock track helicopter gun a defenceless animal ................ yeahhhaaaaaahhhhhhh

They should be ashamed of themselves.

Ouch I fell out of the forum...................




.

I assume they went back and picked them up, turned them into sausages or something. At least it's little more sporting than standing in line waiting to get electroshock to the head.

[Wolf_Rider]

As a Londoner not all gun crime is reported, they are rife on the streets here with "kiddie" gangs proudly showing them off.

Inner London housing estates tenants are prisoners at night too frightened to go out in the late hours, some areas are no go zones for any of the authorities, the same applies to certain cities and their sub cultural areas in the North of England.











The fiction of "A Clockwork Orange" comes to life

[Bewolf]

Interesting article in the Economist, fitting to the topic at hand

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2012/07/gun-rights

A Stinger for Antonin

Jul 30th 2012, 17:05 by M.S.

YESTERDAY on "Fox News Sunday", Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court justice, suggested that Americans may have a constitutional right to own and carry shoulder-mounted anti-aircraft missiles.

CHRIS WALLACE: What about…a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We’ll see. Obviously the amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried—it’s to keep and “bear”, so it doesn’t apply to cannons—but I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you’re a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.

Most gun-rights advocates will probably downplay Mr Scalia's remarks, but I applaud them. In fact, I think the only thing amiss here is Mr Scalia's weirdly literalist approach to the word "bear"; the first amendment's reference to "freedom of speech and of the press", for example, is generally held to apply to non-verbal communications as well. Besides, even though you can't carry an M1 Abrams battle tank, that shouldn't necessarily preclude you from "keeping" one. More important, though, Mr Scalia seems to be one of the few people in the judiciary who may be favourably disposed towards letting Americans own the only kinds of weapons that actually make sense, under the dominant justification that advocates currently provide for the importance of gun rights: the right to defend yourself against the government.

There are basically two ways of explaining why a right to own guns belongs in the Bill of Rights. The first is that it's part of the assumed natural right to self-defence against other citizens. The second, increasingly the main line of argument by gun-rights advocates, is that's it's necessary to prevent governments from arrogating tyrannical powers to themselves. Hence the ready response of a pro-gun-rights New York Times reader to an editorial calling for a compromise on gun control:

The Second Amendment was not written to protect hunters and recreational shooters. It was written as a safeguard against a government that might become so centralized and so powerful that it would pose a threat to the freedom of the citizenry and the Republic.

The same premise undergirds the gun-rights philosophy of the NRA ("America's First Freedom"), the Second Amendment Foundation ("the intent of [the second amendment] was to protect individuals from government powers"), and other gun-rights organisations. And indeed the Supreme Court relied on this interpretation of the second amendment's purpose in its 2008 decision in District of Columbia v Heller, which first established that the amendment guarantees an individual right to own guns. Many of the negotiating parties to the constitution, the court wrote, feared that the new federal government would act as Charles II had in 17th-century England, disarming rival militias so as to impose tyrannical rule. Hence the amendment's phrasing, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In his majority opinion, Mr Scalia glossed the amendment's prefatory clause thus:

There are many reasons why the militia was thought to be “necessary to the security of a free state.” See 3 Story §1890. First, of course, it is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections. Second, it renders large standing armies unnecessary—an argument that Alexander Hamilton made in favor of federal control over the militia. (The Federalist No. 29, pp. 226, 227 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).) Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.

We can see something of a problem begin to develop here. Reasons one and two above are obviously anachronistic: militias composed of private gun owners are no longer useful in repelling invasions or suppressing insurrections; they are more likely to be the insurrectors. And obviously, militias no longer render the US Army unnecessary. What about the third one? Is a country whose "able-bodied men" are "trained in arms and organized" (and, one assumes, have access to guns) "better able to resist tyranny?"

Of course not. The idea that, in the modern world, a country full of people with private handguns, shotguns and AR-15s in their households is more likely to remain a liberal democracy than a country whose citizens lack such weapons is frankly ridiculous. Worldwide, there is no correlation whatsoever at the country level between private handgun ownership and liberal democracy. There are no cases of democratic countries in which nascent authoritarian governments were successfully resisted due to widespread gun ownership. When authoritarian governments come to power in democracies (which is rare), they do so at the ballot box or with heavy popular support; where juntas overthrow democratic governments, as in Greece, Brazil, Chile or Iran, popular gun ownership is irrelevant. Once authoritarian governments take power, if they decide they don't want citizens to own guns, they take them away, easily crushing any isolated attempts at resistance. When, on the other hand, authoritarian governments are overthrown in military uprisings (as opposed to peaceful revolutions, which are more common), the arms that defeat them come from defecting soldiers or outside aid. Widespread gun ownership among the common folk may conceivably have been an important obstacle to centralised government control in 17th-century Britain, just emerging from feudalism; but since the universalisation of the modern nation-state in the 19th century, the degree of force that governments can bring to bear has overwhelmed any conceivable popular defence of localised rights and privileges by companies of yeoman musketeers. To stack up against police, the National Guard or the US Army, private gun enthusiasts would, at a minimum, have to be packing an arsenal that would be illegal in any state in the union, even Arizona.

Indeed, lower in his opinion, Mr Scalia recognises this problem.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment ’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Because...why? Mr Scalia's claim here is that modern technological developments have rendered the second amendment meaningless with regard to its original intent, but that we have to continue enforcing it unchanged, regardless. Perhaps at some level the implicit cognitive dissonance here disturbs him, and this is why he is now considering whether citizens do have a right to keep and bear arms that might actually give the US military pause, such as surface-to-air missiles that could take out American helicopters and fighter-bombers—plus maybe land mines, shoulder-launched anti-tank missiles, or perhaps just IEDs, which had considerable success in crippling light mechanised infantry in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. Surely that could deter some federal tyranny!

This entire paradigm is absurd. Laws and regulations in America are determined by the actions of the legislature, the executive and the courts, with the consent of the voters; the level of gun ownership has nothing to do with anything. When congressmen debate liberty-related measures such as the health-insurance mandate or net neutrality, they don't worry about getting shot; they worry about getting re-elected. Once laws and regulations are in place, the government does not hesitate to enforce them because it is worried about resistance by gun-owning citizens. Widespread gun ownership by private citizens will no more deter the US government from enforcing the Endangered Species Act against property owners than widespread gun ownership by drug dealers has deterred the government from enforcing the Controlled Substances Act. Nor should it. If anything, widespread gun ownership forces the government to become more repressive and more invasive in its efforts to fight crime and prevent insurrection. This is the kind of vicious dialectic one sees in countries like Afghanistan, Somalia, Iraq and Burma, where dispersed gun ownership among rival ethnic groups leads to a see-saw with brutal dictatorial regimes, who see repression as the only means to keep the state from disintegrating.

Nonetheless, I applaud Mr Scalia for doing his part to make this aspect of the gun-rights debate clearer. If the purpose of the second amendment is to enable citizens to resist the government, then the entire regime of current gun restrictions needs to be overturned: citizens need to be able to buy fully automatic assault rifles, rocket launchers, military-grade explosives, remote detonators, armoured vehicles with mounted artillery, surface-to-air missiles, light bombers, armed drones, everything. If some citizens want to keep and bear arms in order to take on the power of the federal government, that's what it's going to take. And should those citizens decide to fully exercise such rights, then their second-amendment freedom will become the freedom to be attacked and crushed by the police and the US military, on behalf of those of us who support the integrity of the American government we have elected and the enforcement of its laws.

[JG4_Helofly]

@ Bewolf I am imagining the guy who keeps a rocket launcher under his bed in case he gets attacked by an assault tank :)

Btw. I am always astonished that it was the conservatives who took away many libertys from the people after 9/11. Doesn't fit with the idea of liberty and protection against the government...

[Bewolf]

@ Bewolf I am imagining the guy who keeps a rocket launcher under his bed in case he gets attacked by an assault tank :)

Btw. I am always astonished that it was the conservatives who took away many libertys from the people after 9/11. Doesn't fit with the idea of liberty and protection against the government...

Patriot Act? Yeah, this act (and the Iraq war) started my disenchantment with the US. Before I always looked at the US a shining beacon, given their cold war conduct, treatment of Germany after WW2, politians like Roosevelt or Eisenhower, "real" men, the help in the Berlin Blockade, even Kennedy and Reagan at the Berlin Wall, their support for reunification while our so called "friends" in Europe like France and the UK did everything they could to prevent it. I travelled quite a lot over there, even had an american girl friend and still call quite a few americans "friends". I stopped going there when the US customs started to treat my like a potential criminal.
911 initially made me angry beyond imagination. I fully supported the Afghanistan war.

All undone. After those Bush years only one term fits to the describe the US. Fear. And it undoes all the achievements by the people of the United States over centuries. It is frightening how fast you can ruin such a reputation for generations to come.

And when I watch Romney and what he said during his recent trip to Israel....Oy vey.
Politics in the US are becoming ever more radical.

[Sternjaeger II]

The fiction of "A Clockwork Orange" comes to life

indeed my droogies, but I suppose it's better to let those people live in fear, if you don't see them they don't exist, right?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2S3SraFmI0

[Wolf_Rider]

"It's a stinking world because there's no law and order anymore! It's a stinking world because it lets the young get on to the old, like you done. Oh, it's no world for an old man any longer. What sort of a world is it at all? Men on the moon, and men spinning around the earth, and there's not no attention paid to earthly law and order no more." - the tramp, A Clockwork Orange

[5./JG27.Farber]

Harry brown and Gran Tourino... Epic. If only they were real...

[Outlaw]

The main problem I see with firearmes is escalation. That's what Bewolf wrote. When stuff like "home defense" with guns is common, then criminals will prepare for that and bring their own.
As a Swiss, I am always amazed how scared americans seem to be. Over here, I know not a single person who feels threatened to a point where he would feel the need for a gun in order to defend himself. The governement is also not seen as a threat.

I know a woman who was raped, beaten, and left for dead. My sister was stabbed in the back by an attempted rapist. I witnessed a bar room murder where the weapon of choice was a beer mug. There were no firearms involved in ANY of the above cases and there are TENS OF THOUSANDS OF THESE EVERY YEAR. Criminals DO NOT NEED GUNS TO INJURE AND/OR KILL.

You state that, "...I know not a single person who feels threatened to a point where he would feel the need for a gun in order to defend himself...". In response, I ask, what is the intended method of defense if the need arises? Is the entire population of Switzerland so bad-ass that they can kick the crap out of anyone that attacks them? Are violent crimes non-existent in your country?

There are TENS OF MILLIONS of Americans who are just as helpless against an unarmed attacker as they are against an armed one. The thought that criminals without guns are less dangerous at an individual level is just so far below the level of stupid that it can't even be described.

In 2010 there were 778,901 violent assaults. 405077 of those were committed with no weapon at all or with something other than a knife or firearm. That's ALMOST HALF A MILLION PEOPLE violently attacked without a firearm or knife used by the attacker.

I can't find a statistic, but, for arguments sake let's say that only 25% of those assaults resulted in significant injury. That's 101269 people. Let's say, 1% for permanent injury...4050 people. Those percentages are just guesses on my part. Feel free to show more accurate numbers if you have them.

Regardless, it is clearly obvious that there are TENS OF THOUSANDS of significant injuries caused by attackers without weapons every year.

If you want to play the averages and feel that it's better for you to get your ass kicked than to protect yourself, that's great. Or, if you're such a bad-ass that you are invulnerable to any form of physical assault, that's great too.

But, as I've said before, don't force me to be one of the others that aren't in one of the above categories.

--Outlaw.

[SYN_Flashman]

I thought this thread was about skeet shooting?

[ATAG_Doc]

I have defended myself from a bear attack once using only a loose-leaf notebook. But yes a US serviceman won skeet shooting today I hear.

[AndyJWest]

I have defended myself from a bear attack once using only a loose-leaf notebook.

What did you do? Write a polite note to the bear asking it to kindly desist? ;)

P.S. I demand the right to arm bears...

[Outlaw]

I thought this thread was about skeet shooting?

You mean it's not a cross-country defensive break dancing thread????

Damn! All my stats are based on historical CCDBD data.

--Outlaw.

[JG4_Helofly]

@ Outlaw

Why must it be a gun? Why not something less leathal? Have you ever seen the effect of OC spray? With a range of up to 5m, I don't see why this wouldn't work for "home defense".
Also most times, you won't have time to grab a weapon to defend yourself.
There is also the risk of injurie to other people living in the house. You don't know where your bullet is going to hit.You must keep in mind, that shooting requires skill. Especially in high stress situations and in the dark, most people will miss the target. The FBI had a statistic about hit percentage of police officers in firefights. over 70% of the bullets missed and that at close range (up to 7 meters).
That's why the protection is not garanteed and you might hit someone you don't want to hit.

I do not say that you shouldn't have anything to defend yourself, but a gun is not the way to go imo. There are better alternatives.

[ctec1]

Just curious, how accurate you think youre gonna be with that can of pepper spray in that same fire fight. No thanks, I'll keep my 40.

[kendo65]

...
A society is what you make out of it, a melange of opinions and stances of all people within this society, influencing itself through all levels simply by interaction.
And the more people within that given society distrust each other, the more people will take over that view in return. That is the starting point where societies start moving to the bottom. Also a little reminder of history, when you look for actual root causes for the developments you warn about. It simply does not work out if you see bad people all around.
...

Being on this forum the last few months has been a real eye-opener. I've been really shocked at the attitudes of so many of the Americans on here.

It seems that American society is very dangerously fragmented and volatile. Everyone seems to feel threatened. Seems to be a picture of a society losing cohesion and slowly disintegrating.

Maybe not surprising given that the U.S. right has been edging ever further into la-la land paranoia, fuelled by Fox news and a wide array of shock jocks.

God help us all.

[Outlaw]

I do not say that you shouldn't have anything to defend yourself, but a gun is not the way to go imo. There are better alternatives.

I disagree with your, "...most times...", statement. I can reach a multitude of firearms in my home within a few seconds from nearly anywhere in it and I can do the same within my car.

Besides, if your argument is that you won't be able to retrieve your firearm you won't be able to retrieve something, "less lethal", either so you might as well just have a, "request theft" button, at the front door that restrains the occupants, disables any communication devices, and unlocks the doors for any would be attackers.

As far as the "less lethal" argument goes, that is just so ridiculous I can't even laugh. I want to be AS LETHAL AS I CAN. Why should an attacker have even the slightest chance of hurting me? Why is it his RIGHT to be able to attack me. And make no mistake, by not allowing me the power to destroy him in his tracks YOU ARE GRANTING HIM THE RIGHT. The fact that he may pay for it later will not influence his decision at all.

Regardless, there are thousands of cases where pepper spray has failed to stop attackers. Furthermore, HAVE YOU EVER REALLY THOUGHT ABOUT UNLOADING A CAN OF PEPPER SPRAY IN YOUR BEDROOM? I mean, really, you had better hope it will stop him because unless you're on the same drugs as your attacker it sure as hell will put you on the ground. Of course your A/C will eventually spread the cloud to the rest of the house so you have that to look forward to.

Don't even mention a taser unless you want to pit your hand to hand skills against the kind of person who would break into your house.

As an IDPA and IPSC competitor I am fully aware of the skill level shooting requires.

There are several types of frangible home defense rounds that will not penetrate an interior wall with significant energy remaining.

You are correct in that protection is never guaranteed (and I never said such) but I CAN guarantee you that, "less lethal", only translates to, "less protection". While it is true that there is always the possibility of unintended injuries and, while I am sure it has happened, I have never read of a single one in the hundreds of accounts of defensive firearm use I've read.

--Outlaw.

[Oldschool61]

Dont worry not all americans are like these gun toting rednecks on these forums. Some of us are educated and not aggressive.

[JG4_Helofly]

So pepper spray doesn't work? I work with these sprays and used it several times. The effect is immediate.
If the criminal is drugged and the spray does not affect him, well, then a bullet in a non vital area won't stop him either. That's were we come to skill again. Most people won't be able to hit a vital area under stress and in the dark. So I disagree when you say that less lethal weapons are less protection.

An other problem is, that many people will also shoot criminals who "just" want to steal money in their houses. That's a problem. I can imagine that a scared person who doesn't have training, will fire at every person which is not supposed to be in his house.
Also there is a great chance of shooting because of the stress. You know the problem: finger on the trigger and before you know it the gun fires. Especially single action pistols with a light trigger pull.

Imo a gun is a to complicated system for an untrained individual. And therefore dangerous for him and others.

[nearmiss]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84IZxWvOWWY

I love happy endings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk-6KKM8&feature=related

[AndyJWest]

I love happy endings!

Nearmiss, you are sick in the head. A boy gets killed on his 19th birthday, and it is a 'happy ending'?

You are utterly unfit to be a moderator here. It is a disgrace that 1C allow you to abuse their forums to promote a particularly obnoxious brand of right-wing politics in a forum that is supposedly 'non-political' Still, with an election due in the US, you have to get your deranged crap in quick, don't you?

Is it any wonder that this forum is riddled with trolls and crackpots, when the moderators are the biggest pushers of it?

[swiss]

Nearmiss, you are sick in the head. A boy gets killed on his 19th birthday, and it is a 'happy ending'?

You are utterly unfit to be a moderator here. It is a disgrace that 1C allow you to abuse their forums to promote a particularly obnoxious brand of right-wing politics in a forum that is supposedly 'non-political' Still, with an election due in the US, you have to get your deranged crap in quick, don't you?

Is it any wonder that this forum is riddled with trolls and crackpots, when the moderators are the biggest pushers of it?


LOL!
You're really cute - or maybe completely insane.

Some crackpot robber with a gun got shot, that's pretty much exactly what he deserved.

[Bewolf]

LOL!
You're really cute - or maybe completely insane.

Some crackpot robber with a gun got shot, that's pretty much exactly what he deserved.

With 19, yeeeeah. I seriously do not want to live in your world.

[swiss]

An other problem is, that many people will also shoot criminals who "just" want to steal money in their houses.

:-x


With 19, yeeeeah. I seriously do not want to live in your world.

You actually feel sorry for an armed, 19 year old criminal?

[Hood]

LOL!
You're really cute - or maybe completely insane.

Some crackpot robber with a gun got shot, that's pretty much exactly what he deserved.

I guess life in the US is cheaper than I thought. Not a thought as to the "why". I wonder if the robber could have got the gun if guns weren't allowed.

I also wonder what the stats are for CC killings versus gun murders, or how many lives have been saved by CC people shooting someone compared to how many lost by pretty much any gun incident. I'd guess that gun crime is ahead by a very long way.

I'm still trying to get my head round the celebration of a 19 year old being shot; regardless of the situation it's sad all round.

Hood

[swiss]

I guess life in the US is cheaper than I thought. Not a thought as to the "why". I wonder if the robber could have got the gun if guns weren't allowed.


I'm pretty sure I could obtain a gun illegally in less than 3 hours - here in Zürich.


I'm still trying to get my head round the celebration of a 19 year old being shot; regardless of the situation it's sad all round.


Those who court danger will perish in it.
Btw: Would your POV change if he was, say... 29?


I guess life in the US is cheaper than I thought.

Where do think I live?
Helofly lives here too, I just did some google research. ;)

[kammo]

Nearmiss, you are sick in the head. A boy gets killed on his 19th birthday, and it is a 'happy ending'?

You are utterly unfit to be a moderator here. It is a disgrace that 1C allow you to abuse their forums to promote a particularly obnoxious brand of right-wing politics in a forum that is supposedly 'non-political' ?


+1

Nearmisses comment on this issue (it started about Olympic sport event and now we are celebrating a killing) is a perfect example how NOT to take part in the discussion when you are a moderator. This is a sad place.

[swiss]

This is a sad place.

1st: It's the lounge.
2nd: You can leave anytime if you feel uncomfortable.

[David198502]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84IZxWvOWWY

I love happy endings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk-6KKM8&feature=related



poor mind.
i guess americans are a bit different to the rest of the first world countries in this regard...

[Hood]

I'm pretty sure I could obtain a gun illegally in less than 3 hours - here in Zürich.

Those who court danger will perish in it.
Btw: Would your POV change if he was, say... 29?

Where do think I live?
Helofly lives here too, I just did some google research. ;)

You sound proud of the fact you can get an illegal gun. I'm sure there are many militia with rifles they don't want. For myself, I have no idea where I'd get an illegal gun from.

I don't care if someone is 9, 19, 29 or whatever age. Life is precious and to celebrate taking it is sick.

I think you live in Switzerland - the name is a little clue.

Hood

[Bewolf]

:-x
You actually feel sorry for an armed, 19 year old criminal?

If you do not, I actually worry for your mental health. (then again you were also advocating the killing of large parts of the human population in another thread, so I actually prefer this criminal over you).
He was just 19 and you have no idea what his story is. It is one thing to take death into account here. But to actually be cheerful about it....that is sick.

And I say that as someone who once has stared into the barrel of a gun himself.

[Sternjaeger II]

I dunno what's more deluded, the fact that you wanna save the whole of the humanity (which, as hard as it is, is just against nature), or the fact that you still think that all this is because of guns.

The problem is human nature and abuse of free will. Nobody forces you to become a criminal, it's down to whether you can deal with being "the baddie" or not.
In the end of the day it's about society values: people that can't get wealthy honestly and are ready to compromise with their conscience will do so.
And as you can imagine many do, and often convince themselves that deep inside they do it for a good reason, but it doesn't change the fact that their misconduct might take them in front of a barrel, an electric chair or a jail.
You hear of a lot of young criminals, but the ones who age well and manage to retire are few and far between, because it's a life that takes its toll on you, mentally and physically.
Guns play a role in that of course, but before guns there were knives, sticks, ropes, swords.. a gun is a tool, but there's a difference to it: it can balance things out. In situations where normally the victim's chance of survivability would be very low (like in the article I posted before), the possibility to have a gun will bring things to a more potentially balance level.
Besides it's the good old "beware of dog" deterrent: if the person in front of you potentially has a concealed weapon you'll think twice before attacking her or being rude.
The big problem with anti-social behaviour in the UK is because the scum knows that people (and the police for the matter) are not ready to tackle or face such thing when it happens on a large scale, and the brainless law system often means they can get away with it..

I had a neighbour here that was arrested because he grabbed a teen that he saw scratching his car. He didn't hit him, he only grabbed his arm, but he got arrested for assault to a minor. Go figure...

[Bewolf]

I dunno what's more deluded, the fact that you wanna save the whole of the humanity (which, as hard as it is, is just against nature), or the fact that you still think that all this is because of guns.


There is a difference between reckonging the problem of human nature and adjust to it opposite to actually celebrate the worse parts. If you start actually taking it easy then I do not see any difference to those people comitting those crimes. If at all you support their attitude. Because it is also human nature to act within the confines set by their environment. A more altruistic society "will" produce less crime then a cynical one. That is not utopia, that is obvious if you compare modern states.

If people want to change something, they gotta lead by example. But that is an attitude that is more and more amiss these days, as everybody gets down to "my life, f*uck the rest, their own darn fault." I do not think we ever lived in such cynical times as the current one.


The problem is human nature and abuse of free will. Nobody forces you to become a criminal, it's down to whether you can deal with being "the baddie" or not.

Right in the first part of the sentence, wrong in the second part. Nobody "choses" to be a criminal. I yet have to find a single person who himself would consider the "baddie". Eveybody has justifications for his actions. Expecting that all these people have the education and more important "will" to follow society as a whole is what is delusional.

Ppl grow into the situation they are into. WHen a person only expiriences crap in his life then how the heck to you expect these pople to develop a positive attitude? It is not only unrelaistic, it's outright dishonest for purely lazyness reasons.


In the end of the day it's about society values: people that can't get wealthy honestly and are ready to compromise with their conscience will do so.
And as you can imagine many do, and often convince themselves that deep inside they do it for a good reason, but it doesn't change the fact that their misconduct might take them in front of a barrel, an electric chair or a jail.

Absolutely, but as you know, everybody makes mistakes. That, too, is human nature. And if you never had someone in your life actually telling you how things work, then the question comes up again, how can you expect these people to fit in. Crime rate actually is a very nice pointer to the state of any given society. And as much some people want to push that away, every individual is responsible for what is going on in a society as a whole.


You hear of a lot of young criminals, but the ones who age well and manage to retire are few and far between, because it's a life that takes its toll on you, mentally and physically.

Absolutely, and that is exactly the reason why I gotta laugh at the notion that people actually "chose" that route. In fact, in most cases it is a last ditch effort because people simply do not know how to help themselves. Show me one human being that is inherently "evil" from the get go on and I may change my mind, but most people simply become this way due to expiriences and what their social environment teaches them.


Guns play a role in that of course, but before guns there were knives, sticks, ropes, swords.. a gun is a tool, but there's a difference to it: it can balance things out. In situations where normally the victim's chance of survivability would be very low (like in the article I posted before), the possibility to have a gun will bring things to a more potentially balance level.

which brings us back to the original topic and how much easier guns make killing. By all sides insolved. As I already said before, teh root causes may be differnt, but guns fuel the fire by a margin. Especially in a society that celebrates killing. You gotta wonder why people are so upset about criminals killing others when it is exactly that what society subconciously teaches them from the get go, coupled with "help yourself" and "only do what is good for yourself, with disregard to others". Here only the definition who deserves to be killed is what makes the difference.


Besides it's the good old "beware of dog" deterrent: if the person in front of you potentially has a concealed weapon you'll think twice before attacking her or being rude.
The big problem with anti-social behaviour in the UK is because the scum knows that people (and the police for the matter) are not ready to tackle or face such thing when it happens on a large scale, and the brainless law system often means they can get away with it..

No, you do not. That would require thoughtful being witha keen eye on their surroundings. But such people usually do not become criminals. And when you talk about the scum in the UK; you might want to find out how this scum developed. Those "chavs" and other folks don't just rain from the air during a bad day.


I had a neighbour here that was arrested because he grabbed a teen that he saw scratching his car. He didn't hit him, he only grabbed his arm, but he got arrested for assault to a minor. Go figure...

THAT is a whole different problem. I agree, in many ways ppl are too soft these days. However, one extreme does not justify the other.

[kammo]

I dunno what's more deluded, the fact that you wanna save ...

It's naive to think good guys have to have guns to protect them from the bad guys. It's naive cause nobody knows who is the good guys. World ain't black and white. This thread is a perfect example of that. Seems here is a few individual who celebrate when a person gets killed (eventhoug I agree that when you take a gun do stick up you may get killed. It's and wrong and idiotic thing to do. But I don't go YIPPEE when the robber gets killed cause it drags you to the same level with the criminal) and they consider themselves to be the "good guys". Thank god I don't live close to these people.

One of the easiest way to reduce gun related crimes is to apply strict gun laws. Simple as that. It's not the only measure but it's the first step.

[WTE_Galway]

Americans must in general be a very weak, frightened and insecure people if they feel the need to have armed vigilante members of the public lurking around ready to pull guns and summarily "execute" any random criminal or potential criminal they spot.

I suppose one advantage is you can upgrade the penalty for crime to capital punishment without having to get it through the legislature as the courts get automatically by-passed.

[adonys]

have you ever heard of someone going postal with a .. knife? or a fork? or a sword?

the biggest difference is that selling guns at ease will lead to many cases in which legal-gun-owner people go nuts, and start spreading mayhem around them.

besides, most of the illegal gun traffic in fueled by the legal one: "oh no, sir officer, they thieves stole my car in which I had all my pistols and machineguns and my RPG too!"..

[Wolf_Rider]

have you ever heard of someone going postal with a .. knife? or a fork? or a sword?





yes

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7442327.stm

and there plenty of instances of murder with knives, machetes, clubs/ blunt objects, etc

[Bewolf]

Americans must in general be a very weak, frightened and insecure people if they feel the need to have armed vigilante members of the public lurking around ready to pull guns and summarily "execute" any random criminal or potential criminal they spot.

I suppose one advantage is you can upgrade the penalty for crime to capital punishment without having to get it through the legislature as the courts get automatically by-passed.

I know some very cool and relaxed americans. It's just in forums like these the worst kind come out. Same with lots of Europeans and others, however.

[Sternjaeger II]

Bewolf, as you know I come from Italy and I can assure you that the nature of crime there is incredibly varied.

I can guarantee you that in modern western society nobody is forced to be a criminal, it's ALL about will. Crime is strongly bonded to the good ol' equation "I can't afford something but I want it = I'll steal it". It's probably driven by class envy or pure greediness. In a way I feel like the minor criminals are driven by "good reasons" but apply the wrong method, whilst the corporate criminals are pure evil greedy monsters with no sense of the future and no respect for their equals. There are many levels as I said, but you CHOOSE to become a dishonest person.

As per your point on guns being fuel for the fire, I don't think it's always the case: it's a society that deems acceptable to play video games that promote murder and gore, or films that make murder part of their normal routine that cause an overall "numbing" towards the whole concept of violence. We love our action movies and cheer when stuff gets blown up, but we kinda forget that on a subconscious level we are making them a form of entertainment and we're not as shocked when we deal with them in real life.

Back in the day real violence was used as a form of entertainment, nowadays we use fake violence, but it works on the same level: a person with mental issues will absorb and assimilate that to a level where it's hard to distinct between reality and fiction, so even the most atrocious crime (like the one in Aurora) might be somehow justified because of the altered state in which the person lives.

And again it doesn't need a gun to be devastating: the guy could have thrown grenades in that cinema and killed and maimed way more people. The Oklahoma bomber didn't use guns for his terrorist attack either, did he?
The problem is not guns, the problem is the society we live in, and how we numbing ourselves in front of real pain and suffer.

[adonys]

exceptions which are confirming the rule :P

the cases of going postal with white arms are surely fewer and with lesser casualties than the gun-powdered ones.

crimes will still happen no matter what, even with bare hands. but actually having to do your kill from up close requires much more cool blood/insanity than having to kill by just pulling a trigger from a few meters away, and therefore many people which could do it with a gun, won't do it with a knife.

[Wolf_Rider]

exceptions which are confirming the rule :P

the cases of going postal with white arms are surely fewer and with lesser casualties than the gun-powdered ones.

crimes will still happen no matter what, even with bare hands. but actually having to do your kill from up close requires much more cool blood/insanity than having to kill by just pulling a trigger from a few meters away, and therefore many people which could do it with a gun, won't do it with a knife.

Doesn't matter what a person "goes postal" with... it is the same mental/ emotional switch which is flicked.

Manson gave using both gun and knife a good go.....

[kammo]

OK now I get it. It's really bad to regulate guns cause they don't kill people. Only people kill people. We need to be freed from these gun laws. Break away from these shakles! I have a right to own mines, flamethrowers, dum dum bullets, plastic explosives, Gunships, tanks, RPG's, B52's with full bomb load, Agent Orange and yes Tactical Nukes (not H-Bombs cause that would be just too silly right?). I'm truely a free man. Only people kill people.

The thing is guns are allready regulated because they are seen as a major threath to public. We just need to regulate them some moore.

[Bewolf]

Bewolf, as you know I come from Italy and I can assure you that the nature of crime there is incredibly varied.

Undoubtly


I can guarantee you that in modern western society nobody is forced to be a criminal, it's ALL about will.

Agreed, nobody is "forced". But, no, it is not about "will". Will is something you develop when you have a perspective to reach something. And I personally only know very, very few people actually managing to get enough will togeteher to change something about their situation or attitude. "Will" requires a lot of intelligence and self awareness. That is not the norm.


Crime is strongly bonded to the good ol' equation "I can't afford something but I want it = I'll steal it".

Only when other methods have failed, the preconditions for these methods never expirienced or never taught. Without wanting to tell you my life story, there was a time when I dropped down to certain levels of society and expirienced first hand how people think and live there. And the one expirience I made that hardly any of the people there are intentional ass****. One guy, who with the age of 20 actually did rob a gas station with a gun and went to jail for it. These days this individual is one of my best and most loyal friends who by now got his exams and a highly paid job as an IT specialist. Some hard work on my part was involved in this.


It's probably driven by class envy or pure greediness. In a way I feel like the minor criminals are driven by "good reasons" but apply the wrong method, whilst the corporate criminals are pure evil greedy monsters with no sense of the future and no respect for their equals. There are many levels as I said, but you CHOOSE to become a dishonest person.


It is not driven by class envy, though that may be part of the justification. It's mostly done out of impressing buddies, desperation and a simple lack of fantasy in regards to what may happen or what the one being assaulted may think. Ppl at that age simply are not aware of the eventual consequences or don't take it serious enough. Now it is easy to say "you should have known better", but we all know how people are even at later ages. Expecting them to actually be aware of what they do and make a concious choice here, THAT is what is utopian. And a very very comfortable way of deflecting all responsebilities. It is like expecting a dog to use a toilet and punishing him with the excuse that he shoudl have known better. (and yes, I DO say here that a lot of people do not function on their brains, but on gut feeling and instict). It simply does not work this way.


As per your point on guns being fuel for the fire, I don't think it's always the case: it's a society that deems acceptable to play video games that promote murder and gore, or films that make murder part of their normal routine that cause an overall "numbing" towards the whole concept of violence. We love our action movies and cheer when stuff gets blown up, but we kinda forget that on a subconscious level we are making them a form of entertainment and we're not as shocked when we deal with them in real life.


You are right, it is not "always" the case. But it certainly is the case in a country that has seen extremly high rates of gun related crimes and murder for decades now.

However, I do agree that our modern culture showing violence and gore in movies on an unprecendet scale has some influence here. That is part of one of the points I made before, a lack of responsebility in society, enjoying such creulties for the fun of it and then wondering that it may actually have an effect on people in the long run. Games and movies have become way, waaay too violent. I've only seen the frist SAW movie. I got so sick of it that I never watched any other part. Yet it is one of the greatest series in the last decade. Go figure.


Back in the day real violence was used as a form of entertainment, nowadays we use fake violence, but it works on the same level: a person with mental issues will absorb and assimilate that to a level where it's hard to distinct between reality and fiction, so even the most atrocious crime (like the one in Aurora) might be somehow justified because of the altered state in which the person lives.

It is not justifyable at all. But it has it's reasons. And cheering the killings while ignoring the underlying patters is what makes those individuals part of the problem, not the solution.


And again it doesn't need a gun to be devastating: the guy could have thrown grenades in that cinema and killed and maimed way more people. The Oklahoma bomber didn't use guns for his terrorist attack either, did he?
The problem is not guns, the problem is the society we live in, and how we numbing ourselves in front of real pain and suffer.

Oh, so you think a bomb is a good justification for people having guns?
I agree, there are lots of ways to kill people. And the more sophisticated killers do not need a gun to begin with. But then again, THOSE people are the ones who actually make a descision. In that category, it does not really matter. Brevik tried to bomb buildings in Oslo as well before he got into his gunning spree on that island.

But those kind of people only compromise a tiny fraction of ppl using a gun.

Let me make something clear. I am not advocating letting those teens with guns, or other criminals, get of lightly. They will have to learn a lesson, just pampering them and telling them that it is societies fault won't do any good here. They need to realize that they are reponsible for what they do and make them aware of the consequences, both for themselves and their potential victims.

However, "cheering" and applauding when a 19 year old kid is taken down is just outright evil and puts the person at the same level as the criminal himself. It is that kind of people that breed that kind of cynical and hard attitude you often find at lower levels of society. If I had expirienced such attitudes when I was at that level, I probably would have had few problems dealing with that person accordingly myself. Not because it would have been the right thing to do, but because human nature does not cope well with being put down that way.

[Sternjaeger II]

OK now I get it. It's really bad to regulate guns cause they don't kill people. Only people kill people. We need to be freed from these gun laws. Break away from these shakles! I have a right to own mines, flamethrowers, dum dum bullets, plastic explosives, Gunships, tanks, RPG's, B52's with full bomb load, Agent Orange and yes Tactical Nukes (not H-Bombs cause that would be just too silly right?). I'm truely a free man. Only people kill people.

The thing is guns are allready regulated because they are seen as a major threath to public. We just need to regulate them some moore.

you're being a bit silly now, don't you think mate? :rolleyes:

I am a gun owner and collector and I'm the first one to say we need more adequate controls on gun ownership, banning firearms just because you're scared of what the media feed you, when you probably never even used one, is silly. It's like someone else said here "let's ban all the Muslims from our country because some of them are suicide bombers"... It's not fair and it should not be allowed to happen, because you're limiting someone else's freedom to bear arms, profess a religion, express their opinion if they want to. If you're afraid of gun owners potentially going gung-ho you don't have to worry too much though, you're still gonna be protected by the same police forces that would protect you from criminals and violent people, so good luck to you ;-)

Sometimes I wonder if people really do understand that the world out there is a tough one...

[Sternjaeger II]

In other news: today is the 68th Anniversary of the Warsaw Uprising

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Uprising

[Wolf_Rider]

Only people kill people.



That's right... and until why people go postal is addressed, the same will continue to happen without regard to what is regulated or banned. Just the tools used will differ - including that which is found in the cupboard under the kitchen sink, or the garden shed

[adonys]

do you not agree that going postal with a gun, or a machinegun will most probably end up with much more victims than going postal with a knife?

same logic should be applied to.. dunno.. drugs? because we know how to not get enslaved by them.. or painkillers.. or poison.. as all of them have their uses too.. and only people miss-using them are responsible for the bad outcomes..

[Wolf_Rider]

do you not agree that going postal with a gun, or a machinegun will most probably end up with much more victims than going postal with a knife?

Victim count doesn't matter... its the reasons why it happens which need to be addressed. You've seen the results of simple home held items in the news.

[adonys]

well, of course that the main issue needing to be solving is the reason why people go postal.. any why our (western) society ended up where it is right now.. and which would actually would be a better social system.. but all of those are another stories..

we were here discussing about guns..

speaking of which.. "Alin George Moldoveanu of Romania won the 10-meter air rifle gold medal" :)

[swiss]

have you ever heard of someone going postal with a .. knife? or a fork? or a sword?


Latest one in china: Knife

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeNFzPGRb0o

[ATAG_Doc]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84IZxWvOWWY

I love happy endings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk-6KKM8&feature=related


Bravo! I can guarantee you this. That guy will never ever pull another thing like this again.

This is what this is all about. Sorta like releasing mongooses on a snake infested island. Over a period of time these lower life forms will be removed from the DNA pool because of lead poisoning.

[swiss]

And I say that as someone who once has stared into the barrel of a gun himself.

I had this opportunity quite often - they were supposed to be empty tho. ;)

What was the story behind it?

[kammo]

Victim count doesn't matter... its the reasons why it happens which need to be addressed. You've seen the results of simple home held items in the news.

The first sentense must be most absurd thing a have read a while! You are right that the reason why it happens must be addressed BUT you also have think how we can reduce amount of victims when someone goes bezerk. Madman is helluva lot more dangerous with a machinegun with endless supply of ammo (you can get those legaly) than a madman with a machette. If you don't get this it is impossible to have anykind of sensible conversation on this subject.

[ATAG_Doc]

I guess life in the US is cheaper than I thought.

It is for them that pull out guns on innocent people. You see its a game of chance. You thug and brandish your gun there is a good chance that is the last day you breath.

Like I said its like society has a rodent problem and now has released a predator species that will end up eating the bad ones. Just only matter of time baby. We got this under control over here.

[swiss]

Expecting them to actually be aware of what they do and make a concious choice here, THAT is what is utopian.

He was 19 for christ's sake! That's a grown man, not a child.



Absolutely, but as you know, everybody makes mistakes. That, too, is human nature.


http://demotivators.despair.com/demotivational/regretdemotivator.jpg

[ATAG_Doc]

The bottom line is don't go thug'in!

[SYN_Flashman]

A few pages back someone mentioned pepper spray.

Ive used it when confronting some violent people attacking a man lying on the ground having his head stamped on. The attackers, of whom there were several were all physically larger than me.... and Im 6ft and weigh 190lbs... in fact one of them (the one armed with a big piece of wood he was using to bash the poor victim with!) appeared to enjoy steriods with every meal.

The spray worked immediately and they ran off (rather than turning on me.....thankfully!) and were apprehended later. One of them didnt run that far as he couldn't see very well. All in all its not bad stuff and in the UK its illegal for civilians to own.

However, i'd rather not have to rely on it to confront a gun toting loon or a bear. Frankly were I live both situations are unlikely. Though the badgers can be quite angry.....

Anyhoo, back the very original post. Good work on the skeet shooting that man! If only I was half as good with my shotgun.....

[Bewolf]

I had this opportunity quite often - they were supposed to be empty tho. ;)

What was the story behind it?

Marrokkon Dude not happy about us three cleaning up a parking lot after a party and his car not being able to pull out. He "commanded" me to get the dirt bags away that were in his path. When I did not comply, he pulled a gun. There simply can't be a more banal way to get a gun to your forehead, at the midst of day right in front of our scool (back then, I was 18 ).

The two others stepped back, I stayed and stared him down, telling him to put that playtool away and just leave. Which he did after a minute of pointing that gun at me. He then just drove over those bins in defiance.

He was 19 for christ's sake! That's a grown man, not a child.


I know people who were more grown up then me today when they were 20. I know peope with the age of 40 who are not grown up to this very day. What you look for is not grown up, but maturity. And that often is completely independent of age. You just have to check this forum for getting a feeling of how mature many folks here actually are. And matureness is not something entirely up to you. And just because we generally say 18 is the mark to be grown up, there is no magic button that is activated and makes you a grown man once you actually turn 18.

Say, Swiss, what is it with you and easy death, btw? Death here, klling populations there, death there, death in a second, death yeeehaw. Switzerland is an incredible boring and uptight place (incredible beautiful nevertheless), I give you that, been there often enough. But it can't be THAT boring.

[swiss]

Say, Swiss, what is it with you and easy death, btw? Death here, klling populations there, death there, death in a second, death yeeehaw. Switzerland is an incredible boring and uptight place, I give you that, but it can't be "THAT" boring.

I fail to see any relation between hating humans and boredom.
Maybe I am, in your view, the proof some people are born evil. :grin:

Movie rec.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEFj0Pngu_E


edit:

And another hero

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYA78ss-B-o

[Bewolf]

I fail to see any relation between hating humans and boredom.
Maybe I am, in your view, the proof some people are born evil. :grin:

Movie rec.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEFj0Pngu_E

Iiiiiii give you a hint. Forming your view on the world based on Hollywood usually is not such a good idea =)

And no, you are as harmless as can be. Barking dogs don't bite. The quite, really quite ones is who concern me most. Those who can't get their inner pressure out verbally.

[swiss]

Iiiiiii give you a hint. Forming your view on the world based on Hollywood usually is not such a good idea =)

uh-uh


And no, you are as harmless as can be. Barking dogs don't bite. The quite, really quite ones is who concern me most. Those who can't get their inner pressure out verbally.

Doesn't always need pressure kill, some do it for fun*.
But of course you'd feel sorry even for a serial killer.
Anyway, I don't feel like spending 15yrs in jail, so I'll just keep barking.

*Back in the 90's a close friend of mine was invited to a manhunt in India. At first he thought the other guy was joking - he wasn't...
Such things exist.

[Sternjaeger II]

Marrokkon Dude not happy about us three cleaning up a parking lot after a party and his car not being able to pull out. He "commanded" me to get the dirt bags away that were in his path. When I did not comply, he pulled a gun. There simply can't be a more banal way to get a gun to your forehead, at the midst of day right in front of our scool (back then, I was 18 ).

The two others stepped back, I stayed and stared him down, telling him to put that playtool away and just leave. Which he did after a minute of pointing that gun at me. He then just drove over those bins in defiance.


That's exactly my point mate: a thug pulls a gun to your temple cos in a society with no guns he knows you and/or your mates won't have one.
In a society with a gun ban the thugs will still have thir guns, so I don't see why I should deprive law abiding citizen of the right to self defence. Nobody is forcing you to have one, but if you want you can and it can save you and the people around you.

I'm sorry you had such an awful experience, but it wouldn't have been any different in a society with a gun ban.

[Bewolf]

That's exactly my point mate: a thug pulls a gun to your temple cos in a society with no guns he knows you and/or your mates won't have one.
In a society with a gun ban the thugs will still have thir guns, so I don't see why I should deprive law abiding citizen of the right to self defence. Nobody is forcing you to have one, but if you want you can and it can save you and the people around you.

I'm sorry you had such an awful experience, but it wouldn't have been any different in a society with a gun ban.

Pfff, you do not think even for a minute if I had a gun with me at that time the situation would have been any better, now do you? The greatest weapon you have in such a case is psychology, pure and simple. Had I tried to draw a weapon there you can bet the seriousness level would have been driven up threefold. It at least would have become way more unpredictable. Here we had a teen who only had a gun at his disposal to defend his pride. He was small, weak, without that gun I just could have punched him in the face and that would have been that. One reason why I can't stand guns, because they make the greatest whimp a "strong" man. Pathethic.

And the end result of a development of this kind would be that not one Marrokon, but many more would have a gun. You seem to forget that even nuclear weapons resulted not in one side backing down, but an arms race to the very end, with all the costs that involved. Also, the US does not exactly prove your predictions right.
You gotta think outside the individual sitation, Stern. Just because it may be preferrable to have more options in one situation that does not mean that it improves your or your relatives life in the long term. In fact, it may make life much more dangerous in general.

[swiss]

And the end result of a development of this kind would be that not one Marrokon, but many more would have a gun.

?!

In Switzerland citizens of certain nationalities can never obtain a gun legally.
Grundsätzlich verboten ist der Erwerb, Besitz und das Tragen von Waffen, Munition und dergleichen für Angehörige folgender Staaten:[4] Serbien, Kroatien, Bosnien und Herzegowina, Kosovo, Montenegro, Mazedonien, Türkei, Sri Lanka, Algerien, Albanien. Ausnahmebewilligungen kann nur der Bund erteilen.

http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/frech/a015.gif (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilie.php)

[Bewolf]

?!

In Switzerland citizens of certain nationalities can never obtain a gun legally.


http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/frech/a015.gif (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilie.php)

See, gun regulation works. :cool:

[JG4_Helofly]

?!

In Switzerland citizens of certain nationalities can never obtain a gun legally.


http://www.cheesebuerger.de/images/smilie/frech/a015.gif (http://www.cheesebuerger.de/smilie.php)

Wrong. Look at the words "Grundsätzlich" and "Ausnahmebewilligung". This article is outdated. It had been introduced to prevent people from countrys in conflict, to continue the fight in Switzerland.
Completly stupid article btw.

But could everyone answer the following question: What is better. A few hundred dollars stolen in a waffle shop, or a dead teenager?

[Sternjaeger II]

Pfff, you do not think even for a minute if I had a gun with me at that time the situation would have been any better, now do you? The greatest weapon you have in such a case is psychology, pure and simple. Had I tried to draw a weapon there you can bet the seriousness level would have been driven up threefold. It at least would have become way more unpredictable. Here we had a teen who only had a gun at his disposal to defend his pride.

The first thing you're taught when handling a firearm is that you don't have to draw it out at any given occasion, if you do is only because you need to use it. You dealt with a small thug, plain and simple, and the only thing you could have done is disarm him (Krav Maga is one of the finest forms of self defence for this), and as much as he might have felt strong behind his gun (provided it was real), you did the right thing.
The point is that if he had the doubt that you, your friends or anybody around you could have been armed, he would have thought twice before drawing his gun out.
Only fools and thugs draw pistols out to attack, good guys always use them in defence.


He was small, weak, without that gun I just could have punched him in the face and that would have been that. One reason why I can't stand guns, because they make the greatest whimp a "strong" man. Pathethic.
that is true, but it's also true that there are weaker people like women and elderly that could benefit from the "strength" of a gun. You understand what I mean? I don't think it's nice, but either you play the card of denial and accept that the violent society might strike you at some point, or you cope with it and give yourself a chance.

And the end result of a development of this kind would be that not one Marrokon, but many more would have a gun. You seem to forget that even nuclear weapons resulted not in one side backing down, but an arms race to the very end, with all the costs that involved. Also, the US does not exactly prove your predictions right.
You gotta think outside the individual sitation, Stern. Just because it may be preferrable to have more options in one situation that does not mean that it improves your or your relatives life in the long term. In fact, it may make life much more dangerous in general.

I know, it still remains though that the coward had a mean of being superior to you, and if he was on drugs or had nothing to lose you could have died there and then, and there's no trial, death penalty or apology that would resuscitate you. In Italy we say "It's better to have a bad trial than a good funeral"...

I live in a society that prohibits the ownership of most handguns, but this doesn't make me feel any safer, gangs and thugs are more aggressive here, and in two different situations I had to thank my Krav Maga training (once in London and once in Liverpool).
People tend to avoid bothering me cos I'm quite a big bloke, but it happened that three or four black teens came at me with a knife demanding my wallet and watch. In a way you're right, psychology is very important (they're often more scared than you). I simply said "oh is that all you have? You're gonna need something bigger with me mate"...
I dunno where it came out from, probably because my brain was confident enough to assess the situation and know I would have got away with the situation if the S**t hit the fan.
The first time (in London) the guy actually came too close for comfort, and I disarmed him (his arm made a horrible snapping sound when I twisted it), the second time (in Liverpool, it was 3 white druggies), they simply turned around and fled..

I didn't need a gun and had I had one I wouldn't have pulled it out, because the situation didn't require it, that's the difference.

[swiss]

But could everyone answer the following question: What is better. A few hundred dollars stolen in a waffle shop, or a dead teenager?

A dead teenager, you can be sure he will never rob again or potentially kill someone.

[Sternjaeger II]

I don't advocate the killing of people, guilty or not, I'm even against the death penalty, but I surely won't shed a tear for someone that looked for trouble and got it served with a side of lead..

[Outlaw]

So pepper spray doesn't work? I work with these sprays and used it several times. The effect is immediate.
If the criminal is drugged and the spray does not affect him, well, then a bullet in a non vital area won't stop him either. That's were we come to skill again. Most people won't be able to hit a vital area under stress and in the dark. So I disagree when you say that less lethal weapons are less protection.


NOWHERE did I say pepper spray doesn't work. I said that it is not always effective.

If you truly work with such sprays then you are surely aware of the many cases where they have not stopped an attacker. A simple google search will turn up many.

You must also be aware of the many cases where police officers have been incapacitated by their own sprays. A situation that would amplified HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN A ROOM.

It is obviously true that a single hit may fail to cause an attacker to cease his criminal behavior, however, only an idiot fires a single shot in a life or death situation and then takes time to evaluate an attacker's state before firing again. Mozambique is the way to go.


An other problem is, that many people will also shoot criminals who "just" want to steal money in their houses.


The above is the most overused and asinine statement possible in this argument. Prisons are FULL of murderers who, "didn't mean to hurt anyone". The INNOCENT people they killed are still just as dead. I could care less why anyone breaks into my house. They make that CHOICE at their own risk.



That's a problem. I can imagine that a scared person who doesn't have training, will fire at every person which is not supposed to be in his house.


I will certainly be scared and I will certainly try to kill EVERYONE who is not supposed to be in my house.

Once again, THEY CHOSE TO BE THERE AND THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE RISK.


Also there is a great chance of shooting because of the stress. You know the problem: finger on the trigger and before you know it the gun fires. Especially single action pistols with a light trigger pull.


That will always be the case, but, only the most expensive handguns have really light trigger pulls without additional trigger work. IMO, it's a minimal risk.


Imo a gun is a to complicated system for an untrained individual. And therefore dangerous for him and others.

I disagree. When it comes to defensive use in your home it's not very complicated at all.

You have spoken in ridiculously vague generalities throughout your posts but I would like you to answer my question...

Why should I, individually, be forced to die because, in general, strict gun control would result in fewer gun deaths?

Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED when three individuals forced me to use a firearm defensively. The fact that NONE of the 3 attackers had a firearm would not have saved myself, the 3 year old child, or her mother THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE I HAD A HANDGUN.


--Outlaw.

[Bewolf]

The first thing you're taught when handling a firearm is that you don't have to draw it out at any given occasion, if you do is only because you need to use it.

IF you are taught to begin with. That means you have been part of a shooters club, are a hunter, working with the police or have another special reason for having training. But we are talking free gun ownership here, with every redneck able to go to the gun store here.


You dealt with a small thug, plain and simple, and the only thing you could have done is disarm him (Krav Maga is one of the finest forms of self defence for this), and as much as he might have felt strong behind his gun (provided it was real), you did the right thing.
The point is that if he had the doubt that you, your friends or anybody around you could have been armed, he would have thought twice before drawing his gun out.
Only fools and thugs draw pistols out to attack, good guys always use them in defence.

Certainly I did the right thing, it is not that there were a lot of alternatives. I am not the backing down kinda guy, especially when people try to force me into anything.

But no, I do not buy your theory. If that were so, gun crime in the US would not be as high as it is. Or in any other country with high gun crime. Reality just does not support your point. All it does is making people more agressive and tense in general.


that is true, but it's also true that there are weaker people like women and elderly that could benefit from the "strength" of a gun. You understand what I mean? I don't think it's nice, but either you play the card of denial and accept that the violent society might strike you at some point, or you cope with it and give yourself a chance.



Stern, can you really imagine an old lady pulling a gun and pull the trigger? Do you even want to imagine it being nessecary that an old lady has to carry a gun in the first place? I have a completly different image of the eldery and I myself intend to carry some sweets to give away instead of a gun, that is a given (and that the mental image coming up with this immidiatly connects with pedophiles is another sad marker for society these days).


I know, it still remains though that the coward had a mean of being superior to you, and if he was on drugs or had nothing to lose you could have died there and then, and there's no trial, death penalty or apology that would resuscitate you. In Italy we say "It's better to have a bad trial than a good funeral"...

He was the exception, however. That happend only once in my life and I dealt with all kind of people since then. And I like that to stay that exception.

I am not talking the concrete situation here. That means, yes, I may find myself in a situation that would cause me to wish I had a gun. And yes, it also means close friends, relatives, maybe even future children could be killed.
But chances for that, at least over here, are lower then the chance to die in a car crash.
If everybody has a gun, then I "might" be able to defend myself, but chances to get into the situation in the first place rise expotentially with that. This means you get into a state of mind of constant siege.
I mean I am not putting on a full body kevlar vest for fear of being hit by a car, either. And I doubt you are.


I live in a society that prohibits the ownership of most handguns, but this doesn't make me feel any safer, gangs and thugs are more aggressive here, and in two different situations I had to thank my Krav Maga training (once in London and once in Liverpool).
People tend to avoid bothering me cos I'm quite a big bloke, but it happened that three or four black teens came at me with a knife demanding my wallet and watch. In a way you're right, psychology is very important (they're often more scared than you). I simply said "oh is that all you have? You're gonna need something bigger with me mate"...
I dunno where it came out from, probably because my brain was confident enough to assess the situation and know I would have got away with the situation if the S**t hit the fan.

That probably works more often then folks might realize. You hit it here, these guys are more scared then you are. Espeically when they appear in groups it's often some bravery ritual. Just give them a bit of confidence and their world crumbles. Just supports my theory that gun advocados (obviously not you) actually have an Ego problem if they think they can't deal with these situation the old fashioned way.


The first time (in London) the guy actually came too close for comfort, and I disarmed him (his arm made a horrible snapping sound when I twisted it), the second time (in Liverpool, it was 3 white druggies), they simply turned around and fled..

I didn't need a gun and had I had one I wouldn't have pulled it out, because the situation didn't require it, that's the difference.

And I compliment you for acting this way. What also makes me wonder that you feel the need to carry a gun in the first place.

All that said, I will repeat what I said earlier. When you have to face somebody serious with a gun, you hardly will have the possebility nor the time to get your own. These folks shoot first and ask for money later. There won't be a high noon like situation.

When old ladies need a gun in their daily lives, I think we can agree that this is a society that has already sunken into the drain.

Guns won't make guns redundant. They quanify. And that means bigger chances a gun will find it's way into the wrong hands.

Guns are there for killing. When you have a gun, then it is quite obviousy that you are ready and willing to kill. I yet have to find the point in time when this became a positive attitude to have in the first place.

[Bewolf]

The above is the most overused and asinine statement possible in this argument. Prisons are FULL of murderers who, "didn't mean to hurt anyone". The INNOCENT people they killed are still just as dead. I could care less why anyone breaks into my house. They make that CHOICE at their own risk.

--Outlaw.

And you know what? I actually believe them that they didn't want to hurt others.
Do not misunderstand me, this does not excuse what they do, they deserve punishment.
After that you can become all emotional, sophisticated ape style, raging about guilt and how they deserve their fate and all the usual rightousness. Its modern fashion to be that simplistic, I would not blame you.

Or you can try to be a bit more rational, you know, that bit of brain capability that once used to differ us from the common animal, even against emotions, and ask yourself why these ppl became murderers despite their stated intentions. And once you developed a clue, you could try to make people aware of the circumstances involving the issue and thus not improve the lives of the people surrounding you, but actually give those people enough perspective to get some real goals in life. Ppl with a goal won't go killing.

This is not about nandy pansy nanny understanding, this simply is about putting away your stomach for a moment.

The latter once was an upheld virtue of western societies and culture. That intellectual decline has a lot to do with the decline of the west in general.

[Sternjaeger II]

Beo, my friend, I suppose the point of disagreement is that you see only the negative aspects of gun ownership, whilst I'm trying to demonstrate that there are indeed positive aspects to it, and often they're the one that can solve a situation against all odds (or be useful for other things like hunting).

In reply to the question whether an elderly woman could defend herself:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/very-afraid-66-year-old-woman-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/#

and there are many other cases of old men too. A .38 is an ideal gun with little recoil and extremely portable, and I believe that yes, some societies are rotten and decaying enough to justify the carry of a firearm.

I am lucky enough to have an alternative, and I'm always avoiding confrontation, it's not in my nature and I only snap when I'm attacked, but this is me, other people might not have the skills or simply the capacity to physically or semantically defend themselves, this doesn't mean that they don't have less of a right to defend themselves by means of an object that can balance things in their favour if need be.

Again the solution is to be found in the education and values of society, but you'll be waiting a loooong time before this is sorted out.

I have legally carried concealed weapons whilst still in Italy because of my job and it didn't make me less worried or more confident, it was just a necessity to respond to a threat in an adequate manner, but it didn't change the fact that carrying a Glock in my jacket didn't make me bulletproof.

I agree, there are a lot of people that should stay well far from firearms, because they're a VERY serious thing to deal with, but it's also true that there should be some sort of balance and adequate ways to allow everybody to defend themselves. Maybe Tasers or similar devices could offer an adequate non-lethal alternative (because in the end of the day nobody really likes to kill someone, no matter how good or bad that person is).
So don't get me wrong, I'm not for the "a gun for all" policy, but I'm not gonna sit down and watch our government disarm us so they can control us better, whilst they cannot provide us all with adequate protection from crime..

[JG4_Helofly]

@ outlaw For your, taking a life doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is in your house: fire at will. What do you make of all the people who died because of the use of a gun in a defensiv situation? I am talking about unarmed burglars, people standing near by etc.
You can't just kill anything that might want to attack you. I don't know the law in the US, but here your life must really be treatened in order to use deadly force.

For the pepper spray I learned that there is a small percentage of people who are not affected by it. That's true, but as I said, hitting a target in a high stress situation without training, will have no effect if you miss. I saw people shooting 10 rounds at a static target in training situations without any round in a vital spot. Remember the FBI statistic. And what if the attacker manages to take your gun from you and shoot you with it? Especially in close quarter (like a house) a gun is not the best option.

As for your question, I can only say this. I didn't advocate the interdiction of guns. But as I wrote earlier: using a gun for defense is not the way to go for many reasons I mentionned before. It will ony result in more death.

You must be a very scared man. Maybe you should think about the fact that you have a greater chance to die in a car accident then to get shot.

As you see we won't agree on this topic. So let just agree to disagree.

[Bewolf]

Beo, my friend, I suppose the point of disagreement is that you see only the negative aspects of gun ownership, whilst I'm trying to demonstrate that there are indeed positive aspects to it, and often they're the one that can solve a situation against all odds (or be useful for other things like hunting).

In reply to the question whether an elderly woman could defend herself:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/very-afraid-66-year-old-woman-shoots-and-kills-home-intruder/#

and there are many other cases of old men too. A .38 is an ideal gun with little recoil and extremely portable, and I believe that yes, some societies are rotten and decaying enough to justify the carry of a firearm.

I am lucky enough to have an alternative, and I'm always avoiding confrontation, it's not in my nature and I only snap when I'm attacked, but this is me, other people might not have the skills or simply the capacity to physically or semantically defend themselves, this doesn't mean that they don't have less of a right to defend themselves by means of an object that can balance things in their favour if need be.

Again the solution is to be found in the education and values of society, but you'll be waiting a loooong time before this is sorted out.

I have legally carried concealed weapons whilst still in Italy because of my job and it didn't make me less worried or more confident, it was just a necessity to respond to a threat in an adequate manner, but it didn't change the fact that carrying a Glock in my jacket didn't make me bulletproof.

I agree, there are a lot of people that should stay well far from firearms, because they're a VERY serious thing to deal with, but it's also true that there should be some sort of balance and adequate ways to allow everybody to defend themselves. Maybe Tasers or similar devices could offer an adequate non-lethal alternative (because in the end of the day nobody really likes to kill someone, no matter how good or bad that person is).
So don't get me wrong, I'm not for the "a gun for all" policy, but I'm not gonna sit down and watch our government disarm us so they can control us better, whilst they cannot provide us all with adequate protection from crime..

Sometimes it is frustrating to argue with you, Stern. It is as if you intentionally misunderstand me.

What I am argueing about is not the individual situation. I actually agree, in many ways a gun, in the modern world, helps out in certain situations. Though I think it is quite obvious even here that people overestimate their ability to actually use a gun when it "really" counts. It is much more about "feeling" safe, not about actually being so.

However, my big problem here really is that those situations arise in the first place.
And all immidiate situation solutions you laid down are counter productive to longterm solutions.
You prefer the quick fix over the, argueably more beneficial, long term perspective.
I am not so sure that this has proven a good course of action in any category over history.

[Zorin]

NOWHERE did I say pepper spray doesn't work. I said that it is not always effective.

If you truly work with such sprays then you are surely aware of the many cases where they have not stopped an attacker. A simple google search will turn up many.

You must also be aware of the many cases where police officers have been incapacitated by their own sprays. A situation that would amplified HUNDREDS OF TIMES IN A ROOM.

It is obviously true that a single hit may fail to cause an attacker to cease his criminal behavior, however, only an idiot fires a single shot in a life or death situation and then takes time to evaluate an attacker's state before firing again. Mozambique is the way to go.



The above is the most overused and asinine statement possible in this argument. Prisons are FULL of murderers who, "didn't mean to hurt anyone". The INNOCENT people they killed are still just as dead. I could care less why anyone breaks into my house. They make that CHOICE at their own risk.




I will certainly be scared and I will certainly try to kill EVERYONE who is not supposed to be in my house.

Once again, THEY CHOSE TO BE THERE AND THEY CHOSE TO TAKE THE RISK.



That will always be the case, but, only the most expensive handguns have really light trigger pulls without additional trigger work. IMO, it's a minimal risk.



I disagree. When it comes to defensive use in your home it's not very complicated at all.

You have spoken in ridiculously vague generalities throughout your posts but I would like you to answer my question...

Why should I, individually, be forced to die because, in general, strict gun control would result in fewer gun deaths?

Because THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED when three individuals forced me to use a firearm defensively. The fact that NONE of the 3 attackers had a firearm would not have saved myself, the 3 year old child, or her mother THAT ARE ALIVE TODAY BECAUSE I HAD A HANDGUN.


--Outlaw.

I'd love to see you trialed for second degree murder in such a case, cause that is exactly what you would commit. Killing someone who poses no imminent threat to your life, while you are under control of the situation with your gun drawn and intent to kill.

[BH_woodstock]

i am a well armed hippy.i own several firearms and i used to avg around 10-20 hours a week shooting until it got to expensive.i can even do bullet art."most" gun owners are trained early in life the rights and the wrongs of handling a fire arm.i have guns dating back to the 1700's and have been an avid collector for 30 years.Those who choose to do wrong eventually pay for their crimes in the end and if a responsible gun owner is present during a crime you can be assured they will do what needs to be done to protect an innocent life.I know i would.

I am a 'Peacefull Warrior'.

[nearmiss]

Is there any dictatorship in the world that allows it's citizens the right to own and bear arms legally?

Wouldn't you say there is a direct correlation with the right to legally own a gun and despotic government?

Mexico has gun control and the Drug cartels have killed over 50,000 citizens in the past six years. Maybe this is an extreme situation, but who knows how things can escalate out of control when people have no enforcement power to protect themselves.

------------------------

Note: There are some you that have posted personal attacks. You need to go back and edit or delete your inflammatory postings or you may receive infractions or ban.

[Bewolf]

Is there any dictatorship in the world that allows it's citizens the right to own and bear arms legally?

Wouldn't you say there is a direct correlation with the right to legally own a gun and despotic government?

Mexico has gun control and the Drug cartels have killed over 50,000 citizens in the past six years. Maybe this is an extreme situation, but who knows how things can escalate out of control when people have no enforcement power to protect themselves.

------------------------

Note: There are some you that have posted personal attacks. You need to go back and edit or delete your inflammatory postings or you may receive infractions or ban.

The Nazis did not have a lot of problems with private firearms. In fact, hunting and shooting clubs came to new heights during the Nazi era. Gun banning laws were only introduced after the war.

What you fail to realize is that Dictatorshhips develop out of the midst of a society, its hardly ever fringe groups forcing their will on the majority of people.

I also did not see a rise of the american people when the Patriot act came into being, argueably the largest assault on basic rights in the US ever. This is how dictatoships develop, quitely, with hardly anybody noticing at first and with a lot of initial support.

So can that argument.

[arthursmedley]

Is there any dictatorship in the world that allows it's citizens the right to own and bear arms legally?



The Soviet Union used to, Libya under Gaddaffi, Iraq under Saddam, Syria, lots of the Gulf states, etc. In short, plenty.

[von Pilsner]

And conversely many democracies have strict gun control (so the answer is not that simple, unfortunately).

[nearmiss]

I mentioned, citizens. I meant that to apply to general population. Yes, collaborators with the dictatorship may have guns, which is understandable. Afterall, they are part of the dictatorship.

Hitler was paranoid and no one around him was armed, except for his carefully selected guard units.

The general population in Germany were allowed guns until Hitler came into power. Afterward, the people were imprisoned or killed for having guns in their possession.

[von Pilsner]

Hitler was paranoid and no one around him was armed, except for his carefully selected guard units.

I bet this is true for most world leaders (good and bad).

[Outlaw]

I'd love to see you trialed for second degree murder in such a case, cause that is exactly what you would commit. Killing someone who poses no imminent threat to your life, while you are under control of the situation with your gun drawn and intent to kill.


You are showing your ignorance.

I most certainly would NOT face trial. Why?

Because the state of Texas (like most states) does NOT have a duty to retreat (some states do). Furthermore, it is reasonable to assume that, in a darkened house in the middle of the night, anyone there unlawfully poses a deadly threat.

The reason you can make that assumption is that, as ANY IDIOT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, by the time you determine whether or not they pose an actual threat, IT IS TOO LATE TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT if they do.

SO, ONCE AGAIN, THEY MADE THE CHOICE SO THEY CAN PAY THE PRICE. NOT ME!

Furthermore, in most states, your life DOES NOT HAVE TO BE IN DANGER before you can use deadly force. In most states you can use deadly force to protect yourself from INJURY.

Why? Because, AS ANY IDIOT SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE OUT, by the time you determine if they only, "MEANT", to cause injury and NOT kill you, it's too late to do anything about if they meant to kill you.

And let's not forget about the thousands of dead people who weren't SUPPOSED to die, just get the living crap kicked out of them.

But who cares about them, the important thing is that their murderer is still alive right?

--Outlaw.

[nearmiss]

Youtube has large numbers of carefully documented accounts of atrocities associated with gun control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OM0fG-dzQjE

This following video is about an hour long

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=137bWHaAA1o&feature=related

The historical record is clear with gun control comes some of the worst atrocities against mankind ever known.

Britons aren't happy about gun bans

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKdBxpKqUvs&feature=related

[Bewolf]

I mentioned, citizens. I meant that to apply to general population. Yes, collaborators with the dictatorship may have guns, which is understandable. Afterall, they are part of the dictatorship.

Hitler was paranoid and no one around him was armed, except for his carefully selected guard units.

The general population in Germany were allowed guns until Hitler came into power. Afterward, the people were imprisoned or killed for having guns in their possession.

Err, what?

Whatever book your read, close it and throw it into the bins. There is a deeply ingrained gun culture in shooting clubs and hunting in Germany. "Schützenfeste" to this day form a solid yearly event in many german villages. It's this backwater spirit that formed a large part in the Nazis success in the first place, these guys were not going to hurt their basic support base.

Hitler's personal fear about guns around him does not change that.

[Outlaw]

@ outlaw For your, taking a life doesn't seem to be a big deal. If someone is in your house: fire at will. What do you make of all the people who died because of the use of a gun in a defensiv situation? I am talking about unarmed burglars, people standing near by etc.


Bystanders hit by legal defensive use of firearms is VERY low. MUCH lower than the number of people who would have been killed otherwise.


You can't just kill anything that might want to attack you. I don't know the law in the US, but here your life must really be treatened in order to use deadly force.


True, you can't kill anyone that might want to attack you, but you can kill anyone who reasonably poses a threat. See my reply to Zorin.


Especially in close quarter (like a house) a gun is not the best option.


Based on WHAT?


As for your question, I can only say this. I didn't advocate the interdiction of guns. But as I wrote earlier: using a gun for defense is not the way to go for many reasons I mentionned before. It will ony result in more death.


What a cop-out. Based on your non-answer I can only assume that you afraid to admit that you think it's better that myself, the child, and her mother were dead.



You must be a very scared man. Maybe you should think about the fact that you have a greater chance to die in a car accident then to get shot.


I'm fully aware of crash related deaths. In fact, the fact that car crashes kill 4 TIMES as many people as guns do supports my argument that the anti-gun lobby is ridiculously uneducated. If they were not, they would be lobbying for stricter controls on who is issued a driver's license and more harsh penalties for moving violations. But they do not. So they are ignoring a MUCH MORE DEADLY THREAT to go after firearms.


As you see we won't agree on this topic. So let just agree to disagree.

I don't agree to that!!

--Outlaw.

[von Pilsner]

I'm fully aware of crash related deaths. In fact, the fact that car crashes kill 4 TIMES as many people as guns do supports my argument that the anti-gun lobby is ridiculously uneducated. If they were not, they would be lobbying for stricter controls on who is issued a driver's license and more harsh penalties for moving violations. But they do not. So they are ignoring a MUCH MORE DEADLY THREAT to go after firearms.

You have to take 2 tests to get a license to own a car, perhaps there should be a written and competency test for gun ownership (as well as a license).... actually not a bad idea, Outlaw!

would you object to:
1. reasonable waiting period on gun purchase
2. background check for all gun purchases
3. limiting sale of certain magazines (based on capacity)
4. so called assault weapon ban?

I ask because these are more likely to occur than an outright gun ban (which would be a bad idea) and would still allow a citizen to protect his family.

For the record I am only hesitant on 4 because I know some great people who enjoy their AR15 and AK47s (and crappy SKSs), I'm fine with the first 3.

p.s. - I don't wish you or your family to have any misfortunes and I'm glad you were there to protect them... ;)

[Outlaw]

Right in the first part of the sentence, wrong in the second part. Nobody "choses" to be a criminal. I yet have to find a single person who himself would consider the "baddie". Eveybody has justifications for his actions. Expecting that all these people have the education and more important "will" to follow society as a whole is what is delusional.


Justification does not prevent CHOICE. IMO, BY DEFINITION, if you know the law and intentionally violate it, you have CHOSEN to be a criminal.



Will is something you develop when you have a perspective to reach something.


From the Meriam Webster dictionary...

Free Will: voluntary choice or decision


--Outlaw.

[Bewolf]

Justification does not prevent CHOICE. IMO, BY DEFINITION, if you know the law and intentionally violate it, you have CHOSEN to be a criminal.




From the Meriam Webster dictionary...


--Outlaw.

Great theory. But just as unrealistic as communism. A real choice you only have with a solid overview of all chances and possebilities, their consequences and results.

I yet have to meet a single person fully capable of reaching that.

Besides, ultimately you only rationalize what your stomach gives you. The "will" to decide against your own stomach on a constant basis is not given to many. If it were, the world would be a much better place.

Free will does not mean rationality and an inherent ability to vager between good and evil. That do your guts for you. It just means the absence of an outside power forcing your will.

[ATAG_Doc]

And we get even further evidence that Nearmiss and co are monumentally ignorant about the very topic they go on about.

Meanwhile, Nearmiss has sent be a PM telling me to "go back to that thread and delete those postings very quietly or be banned". I have no intention of doing so. Instead, I shall be contacting 1C directly, asking them whether they consider it appropriate that 'moderators' (LOL!) abuse what is allegedly a 'no-politics' forum to push offensive and paranoid partisan politics, and gloat on the death of teenagers. I expect that Nearmiss will abuse his position further by banning me, and quite likely by trying to erase all evidence of his gross misuse of his powers from the forum. I suggest that all those who are of a similar opinion as me likewise contact 1C directly, and also call for Nearmiss's dismissal. It cannot possibly be in 1C's interest to have a forum already troubled by trolls and the like further inflamed by such behaviour. This has nothing to do with any 1C product, and as an 'off-topic' subject falls entirely within the "Political and religious discussions are prohibited" rule supposedly enforced here. Evidently though, what the rule means to Nearmiss (and sadly, other moderators too, it appears) is that "Political and religious discussions are prohibited unless the moderators support the politics being pushed".

Of course, if 1C actually are in favour of allowing their so-called 'moderators' to use forums for pro-gun political propaganda of the most vile kind (tinted by at least suspicions of overt racism on the part of several other contrubutors: e.g. " these lower life forms will be removed from the DNA pool because of lead poisoning"), one would have to ask whether one should be supporting the company by buying their products. I very much doubt that they are (it would make little sense from an economic viewpoint), but I will have to see how they respond - and if necessary raise this elsewhere. I'm quite sure that sections of the media would be interested to see how an industry that claims (with at least some evidence in support of their position) that 'in-game' violence does not promote violence in the real world could be encouraging the facile and uncaring celebration of such violence, along with racism, xenophobia, paranoia, and all the other garbage that accompanies this world view.



Haha hey so why was this thread created anyway? It was worded in such a way to make one think a shooting happened. It wasn't to discuss a shooting sport at the Olympics.

As the OP so pointed out his hope was to elicit some debate on the UN small arms treaty which failed today and will never apply to anyone individual anyway.

Good job moderators in allowing discussion anyway.

[Bewolf]

And we get even further evidence that Nearmiss and co are monumentally ignorant about the very topic they go on about.

Meanwhile, Nearmiss has sent be a PM telling me to "go back to that thread and delete those postings very quietly or be banned". I have no intention of doing so. Instead, I shall be contacting 1C directly, asking them whether they consider it appropriate that 'moderators' (LOL!) abuse what is allegedly a 'no-politics' forum to push offensive and paranoid partisan politics, and gloat on the death of teenagers. I expect that Nearmiss will abuse his position further by banning me, and quite likely by trying to erase all evidence of his gross misuse of his powers from the forum. I suggest that all those who are of a similar opinion as me likewise contact 1C directly, and also call for Nearmiss's dismissal. It cannot possibly be in 1C's interest to have a forum already troubled by trolls and the like further inflamed by such behaviour. This has nothing to do with any 1C product, and as an 'off-topic' subject falls entirely within the "Political and religious discussions are prohibited" rule supposedly enforced here. Evidently though, what the rule means to Nearmiss (and sadly, other moderators too, it appears) is that "Political and religious discussions are prohibited unless the moderators support the politics being pushed".

Of course, if 1C actually are in favour of allowing their so-called 'moderators' to use forums for pro-gun political propaganda of the most vile kind (tinted by at least suspicions of overt racism on the part of several other contrubutors: e.g. " these lower life forms will be removed from the DNA pool because of lead poisoning"), one would have to ask whether one should be supporting the company by buying their products. I very much doubt that they are (it would make little sense from an economic viewpoint), but I will have to see how they respond - and if necessary raise this elsewhere. I'm quite sure that sections of the media would be interested to see how an industry that claims (with at least some evidence in support of their position) that 'in-game' violence does not promote violence in the real world could be encouraging the facile and uncaring celebration of such violence, along with racism, xenophobia, paranoia, and all the other garbage that accompanies this world view.

Relax, Andy. It is the Internet. You knew what swims here. Life is too short to waste it with anger over that =)

[Outlaw]

You have to take 2 tests to get a license to own a car, perhaps there should be a written and competency test for gun ownership (as well as a license).... actually not a bad idea, Outlaw!


Yes, BUT, those test are so woefully inadequate that they might as well not even do it. The only REAL reason for those tests is to generate funds for the ticketing authority. OK, I'm being a bit facetious but I think you understand my point that 99,9% of the drivers here in the US suck, even the ones that got 100% on the tests.


would you object to:
1. reasonable waiting period on gun purchase
2. background check for all gun purchases
3. limiting sale of certain magazines (based on capacity)
4. so called assault weapon ban?


1 - No, because I have read at least 6 accounts of people who purchased a firearm because they were afraid of a specific individual and used it THAT DAY to save their life.

2 - Yes, and it is implemented now in the United States.

3 - Yes, nothing more than 100 rounds works for me. Note that this should not apply to belted weapons because they are never used in crimes and a collector should not be subjected to prosecution during a display because he accidentally miscounted. I picked 100 rounds because I see this as a step process that will simply lead to more and more limits on capacity. BTW, thanks for using the correct term. I'm so sick of hearing the word, "clip"!

4 - No, because I don't want some maniac to decide to shoot me with a 7mm mag because he couldn't get a .223 or 7.62x39. Even though you reduce my chances of getting hit at all, IF I do get hit, I will not survive a 7mm mag round to the torso. Note that I fully admit that this reasoning is questionable, however, considering that in such a situation I will be charging the individual doing the shooting, I expect I will get hit.


p.s. - I don't wish you or your family to have any misfortunes and I'm glad you were there to protect them... ;)

Thanks!! For the record, they were not my family though. In fact, I only vaguely knew them.

--Outlaw.

[Outlaw]

I yet have to meet a single person fully capable of reaching that.

Then, for you, choice does not exist at all so, like raaaid and his matrix theory, there's no point in even attempting to make a point.

However, in the real world where the rest of us live, if he can kick my door in or walk away, he has a choice.

--Outlaw.

[Sternjaeger II]

Sometimes it is frustrating to argue with you, Stern. It is as if you intentionally misunderstand me.

What I am argueing about is not the individual situation. I actually agree, in many ways a gun, in the modern world, helps out in certain situations. Though I think it is quite obvious even here that people overestimate their ability to actually use a gun when it "really" counts. It is much more about "feeling" safe, not about actually being so.

I understand you perfectly, but personally I will never accept to give up my guns because someone tells me I'm safe or because it will make my country a safer place. I know I'm fit to own and operate firearms, and as long as I have all my marbles and behave according to certain standards (i.e. frequenting gun clubs), I pose no threat at all to the rest of the society, and surely not more than the drunk driver or the average criminal. So no, I won't let the government get my guns and destroy them for their political agenda. When I was told the horror stories of what happened here in the 90s with the seizing and destruction of thousands of pistols.. man what a sad day for democracy that must have been...


However, my big problem here really is that those situations arise in the first place.
And all immidiate situation solutions you laid down are counter productive to longterm solutions.
You prefer the quick fix over the, argueably more beneficial, long term perspective.
I am not so sure that this has proven a good course of action in any category over history.

sorry Beo, but if short term solution means saving lives, I'll stick to owning guns. I'm not ready to become a martyr nor I would want anybody else to be one. You had a shocking experience, but don't think for a minute that gun control would actually mean you or your loved ones wouldn't live the same experience again. Even in this gun-freak-control country they regularly seize assault rifles, because criminals do not abide by the rules of our society.

This article is from 2008, but a friend that works at the London Metro told me things haven't improved at all, and that during last year's riots there was the serious fear that some police officer would have been shot in retribution, that's why many watched as the thugs destroyed the shops...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

[Bewolf]

Then, for you, choice does not exist at all so, like raaaid and his matrix theory, there's no point in even attempting to make a point.

However, in the real world where the rest of us live, if he can kick my door in or walk away, he has a choice.

--Outlaw.

Bullocks. Choice certainly does exist. Simply not as that almighty descision tool you make it out to be. If that were the case, please tell me why in religions hardly anyone decides to join another religion, despite each religion claiming being the best one?

Ppl have much less choice in life then you might think, and that ceretainly is not covered by either/or, black and white, only the extremes views.

[Bewolf]

I understand you perfectly, but personally I will never accept to give up my guns because someone tells me I'm safe or because it will make my country a safer place. I know I'm fit to own and operate firearms, and as long as I have all my marbles and behave according to certain standards (i.e. frequenting gun clubs), I pose no threat at all to the rest of the society, and surely not more than the drunk driver or the average criminal. So no, I won't let the government get my guns and destroy them for their political agenda. When I was told the horror stories of what happened here in the 90s with the seizing and destruction of thousands of pistols.. man what a sad day for democracy that must have been...

sorry Beo, but if short term solution means saving lives, I'll stick to owning guns. I'm not ready to become a martyr nor I would want anybody else to be one. You had a shocking experience, but don't think for a minute that gun control would actually mean you or your loved ones wouldn't live the same experience again. Even in this gun-freak-control country they regularly seize assault rifles, because criminals do not abide by the rules of our society.

This article is from 2008, but a friend that works at the London Metro told me things haven't improved at all, and that during last year's riots there was the serious fear that some police officer would have been shot in retribution, that's why many watched as the thugs destroyed the shops...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/aug/30/ukcrime1

Now we are moving into Pathos? Sad day for democracy?

You want to safe lives by keeping up the conditions that take so many lifes to begin with? What?

You like guns? Nothing wrong with that, so do I. You want to keep them? Fine, I know decent folks who own guns. We disagree, but we disagree on other things as well. Politics and majority voting will have their say here.

But please don't come up with such desperate arguments. I nearly spilled my Apple Juice when I read that.

[Outlaw]

Bullocks. Choice certainly does exist. Simply not as that almighty descision tool you make it out to be. If that were the case, please tell me why in religions hardly anyone decides to join another religion, despite each religion claiming being the best one?

Ppl have much less choice in life then you might think, and that ceretainly is not covered by either/or, black and white, only the extremes views.

My bad, I misinterpreted your use of the word "will" to mean "free will". You meant it in the context of willpower.

Similarly, you misinterpreted Stern's use of the word "will" to mean willpower when he meant, "free will".

However, your statement that no one, "choses", to be a criminal is, for the reasons I stated, completely unsupportable.

Furthermore, I never said anything about the nature of any choice, almighty or otherwise.

--Outlaw.

[arthursmedley]

Youtube has large numbers of carefully documented accounts of atrocities associated with gun control.


Britons aren't happy about gun bans



nearmiss, do you have any sort of ability to distinguish between the historical record and propaganda? Do you actually believe this stuff? Really?

Look, if you guys across the pond want to have your toys - well thats fine. Last time I looked the US was a pretty active democracy and I'm sure if the people wanted to get rid of guns in your society their senators and congressmen would oblige with a bill amending the constitution. That domestic gun sales would seem to be on a permanent upward curve shows that lots of people seem to want them in your society.

Well thats no problem to me as a Brit, it's your call but please, please don't post utter, UTTER b/s about the sometimes tragic history of the rest of the world and link it to some wholly laughable argument about guns=freedom.
That just makes the rest of the civilised world regard you all as a bunch of gun-toting loonies.

As a Brit we enjoy the safety of some of the most restrictive gun legislation in the world - thank heavens!! We just don't need 'em as the chances of coming across someone armed with a gun in every day life are almost zero and we like it that way.

Don't believe me? Here you go;
http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=25341

Every Brit who posted in this thread stated they were against a relaxation of our firearms laws, even a couple who live abroad did so too!