SHOOTING at the OLYMPICS
 

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.

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

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 ;)

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 ...................

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

qft.

Two films to watch that I recommend The Last Days of Lehman Brothers and Inside Job

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:

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???

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

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

This is not only about machine guns.

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.

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

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!

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.



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.

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

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.

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...;)

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.

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.

..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..

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?

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.

once again, open a history book, or look for history of gun control in regimes..
it's not about need, it's about freedom to own a gun.

Should we ban kitchen knives too? :rolleyes:

they actually tried here in the UK..

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

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.

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.

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:A...srei7jApDJHhM8

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

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:

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

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...1&postcount=29

+ 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.

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..

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?

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.

as much as I wholeheartedly agree with you, watch out for the stuff you talk about here, this can easily get out of control..

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 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.

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.

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.

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............

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?

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).

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?).

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)?

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

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..._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 :)

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.

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?

Have anyone of you read this article?
http://www.newsonjapan.com/html/news...icle/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.

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.

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=raaP5...feature=relmfu

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

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

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..

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.

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?

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

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.

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

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-l18w9aQEYl...enchhausen.jpg

Use a bicycle ;-)

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

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.

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

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

Amen to that...

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:

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..

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, but with gun related killings in general.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

Outstanding!!!"

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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. :)

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...

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

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/...me-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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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/...up-crime-down/

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

.
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?

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

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