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.

Also I think your video broke the page.

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.

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.

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....

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?

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.

Guess I will better give the FBI a call now.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Agreed.

Agreed as well.
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.

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)

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.

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)

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.

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...girl-paralysed

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





.

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.

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....

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....

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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....

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

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 :)

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!

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..

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

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_...ther_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.

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.

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

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=h0CQr...0&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..

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

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.

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!

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

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

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gvv60...0&feature=plcp

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.

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

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...

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.

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

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 (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.

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.

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.

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.

The fiction of "A Clockwork Orange" comes to life

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

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democ.../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.

@ 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.

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

"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

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

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.

I thought this thread was about skeet shooting?

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.

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...

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

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

--Outlaw.

@ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

I love happy endings!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk...eature=related

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.

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

:-x


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

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

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. ;)

+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.

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

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

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!"..

yes

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

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

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.

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.

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.....

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.

Undoubtly

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

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

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

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

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..

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.

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" :)