logo Sign In

Born out of Boredom: Starkiller's thoughts on...

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Its currently 7:40PM EST and I have another hour and 20 minutes of work. Library patrons trickle in at a slow pace and I'm fairly bored.

So, what better way to deal with my boredom than to start some random topic discussion.

Guideline
Its really something I shouldn't have to mention, but I figure I will anyways:
Let's not breakdown to swearing, insults and namecalling. I know some topics seem to turn into hotbeds (politics, religion are 2 good examples) in this forum.
And if someone does get nasty, turn the other cheek, politely disagree and remember that Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.

Topic: Gun Control
Within the last year, the American Congress let a law expire which put a ban on certain assault rifles and automatic weapons. The liberals in Congress and around the country were opposed to letting it expire, saying that it would be wrong to allow these weapons to become accessible.

Related Tie-in:
The state of Ohio, where I live, within the last couple years, created a conceal-carry law, allowing citizens who took the proper training and passed classes, to carry concealed weapons. Again, many were against the idea.

My take
The assault weapons ban.
Allowing the law to expire was the right thing to do, for several reasons.
First of all, the ban specifically named certain weapons, so a person could technically change the name of the weapon and sell it "legally". A TEK-9 (which I believe was on the list) could be sold as a DEK-9b, and that got through.
Second, certain venues, such as gun shows, could not be regulated under this law. Sales of weapons at these shows simply went under the radar.
Last, and I consider this the clincher, a criminal, wanting a weapon, is not going to care whether a gun is "legal" or not. They will find a way to get it. But a man wanting to have a legal firearm and keep up with the firepower the criminals have at their disposal is unable to do so. Many police dept. have the same trouble. They are unable to keep up with the criminals.

Now, concerning the conceal-carry law, I feel this was also the right thing. Yes it opens up the door for criminals, but it also opens the door for the good people too.
If you look at crime-rates in states that have legalized conceal-carry, they are actually lower. Why? Because a criminal never knows who might have a gun on them. Would you mug someone if you thought they might have a gun?
Specifically, I recall a story where 2 men attempted to rob a Blockbuster Video. They went in with a shotgun and demanded money from the cash register. A man with a conceal-carry permit and his weapon pulled it out and told the 2 men than if they didn't leave, he'd shoot them. They must not have thought he'd do it, because they did not leave. So he shot them both (both in the leg I believe).
Without conceal-carry, not only would the criminals have gotten away, but they might have shot people in the store as well. By injuring the criminals, the man prevented several crimes.

Conceal-carry also harkens back to the last point about the assault weapons ban. A criminal isn't going to say to himself I better not hide this pistol I'm going to shoot someone with...I might get arrested for carrying a concealed weapon. If he breaks one serious law, what would it matter to him that he also breaks a minor one as well.

Now, tell me what you think.
How do you feel about either topic? Why?
Do you see errors in my reasoning/facts? What are they and what proof do you have?
Author
Time
Post link
I agree with everything. But you see, to me this seems common sense. Why does this even have to be a debate. Criminals aren't going to obey gunlaws, so they only affect those who ALREADY obey the law. I'm honestly considering carrying some sort of weapon in my car or something for the odd event that I ever get robbed/mugged whenever I get out on my own.

I'd make a humourous analogy right now if I could think of one.

4

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I agree with everything. But you see, to me this seems common sense. Why does this even have to be a debate. Criminals aren't going to obey gunlaws, so they only affect those who ALREADY obey the law. I'm honestly considering carrying some sort of weapon in my car or something for the odd event that I ever get robbed/mugged whenever I get out on my own.

I'd make a humourous analogy right now if I could think of one.


Chaltab, consider this:

1- In the eventuality of you getting mugged (btw, how often does that happen in the town where you live???), are you really going to grab you gun and shoot the guy? If you make a sudden move to grab you gun, he could get scared and shoot you first. If you really want to counter-atack, why don't you learn the KRAV MAGA, which is a Israeli self defence fighting system developed for these situations (you'll be able to disarm the man and break his arm without killing him).

2- Let's asume you leave your gun on your car, and it get stolen. That's another gun that'll be used to kill and rob and stuff.

3- Imagine you have your gun in your home and your kids find it. Then, they decide to imitate the russian roullete scene from "The Deer Hunter".

4- If we DISARM everyone, we'll be able to achieve peace, not by grabbing more guns! Violence creates more violence, as Ghandi said: "An eye for an eye will make everyone blind". Ghandi defeated the brutal and fully armed British Empire without firing a single shot. What we need is to CLOSE DOWN the weapons factories and ARREST those who manufacture weapons. Them, we need to disarm everyone, the people AND the criminals. If you arrest a criminal, you're obviously going to take his gun away. You'll probably say "oh, if you forbid selling weapons he'll buy a weapon on black market", ok, so we need to fight the gun industry everywhere the same way we fight the drug cartels. The price of a weapon would increase drastically, it would be highly unavaliable... The violence generated by these weapons would drop, therefore dropping the NEED for more weapons, and so on...

5- Consider this: About an year ago, weapons were officially banned over here. Only police officers, the army, and people who can REALLY justify that they need a weapon can carry one of those. People who already owned weapons were asked to give them away at police stations, and they were paid back. The guns were destroyed. Gun related violence cases dropped after a few months.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
1- In the eventuality of you getting mugged (btw, how often does that happen in the town where you live???), are you really going to grab you gun and shoot the guy? If you make a sudden move to grab you gun, he could get scared and shoot you first. If you really want to counter-atack, why don't you learn the KRAV MAGA, which is a Israeli self defence fighting system developed for these situations (you'll be able to disarm the man and break his arm without killing him).


First of all, I didn't say gun. Second, I am a brown belt in Ishinryu. Not very strong physically, but I know how to fight at least. But I'm safer still with a weapon. Murder and mugging doesn't happen very often around here, but there was recently a very violent murder involving drugs and teenagers (a highschool kid stabbed his sister more than 100 times) that has the whole town shocked and appalled.

Quote
2- Let's asume you leave your gun on your car, and it get stolen. That's another gun that'll be used to kill and rob and stuff.


That's the point of concealing it. One of those concealed weapon permits sounds nice. I hope Tennessee gets them. And of course, if it were to get stolen, it would more likely be sold at a pawn shop or something than used to murder. Of course if it was, I'd regret it, but the event is unlikely.

Quote
3- Imagine you have your gun in your home and your kids find it. Then, they decide to imitate the russian roullete scene from "The Deer Hunter".


I wouldn't even have the Deer Hunter. Besides, Ric. Most kids are smart enough to know that getting shot will kill you. Quit assuming kids are morons. Only teenagers are morons.

Quote
4- If we DISARM everyone, we'll be able to achieve peace, not by grabbing more guns! Violence creates more violence, as Ghandi said: "An eye for an eye will make everyone blind". Ghandi defeated the brutal and fully armed British Empire without firing a single shot. What we need is to CLOSE DOWN the weapons factories and ARREST those who manufacture weapons. Them, we need to disarm everyone, the people AND the criminals. If you arrest a criminal, you're obviously going to take his gun away. You'll probably say "oh, if you forbid selling weapons he'll buy a weapon on black market", ok, so we need to fight the gun industry everywhere the same way we fight the drug cartels. The price of a weapon would increase drastically, it would be highly unavaliable... The violence generated by these weapons would drop, therefore dropping the NEED for more weapons, and so on...


Oh yeah. Again, disarming "Everyone" is impossible because the only people who would accept it are the ones who obey the law. And that completely ignores the fact that guns aren't the problem: murder is the problem. Guns are just a method. By the logic you're using, we should also ban worktools, knives, rocks, sticks, poison, creditcards, swords, ropes, boxcutters, remove one hand from everyone at birth so the can't crush a trechea.... Anything can be used as a weapon, Ric. Don't be so niave.

You ever heard the addage down south "Guns don't kill people. People kill people..." ??? Infact, I made a political cartoon about that very absurdity.

Quote
5- Consider this: About an year ago, weapons were officially banned over here. Only police officers, the army, and people who can REALLY justify that they need a weapon can carry one of those. People who already owned weapons were asked to give them away at police stations, and they were paid back. The guns were destroyed. Gun related violence cases dropped after a few months.


See. They "dropped" they didn't go away. I'm not advocating giving everyone a gun; but banning guns only affects those who already abide by the law. Perhaps Brazilians are just less screwed up than Americans or something. But did you consider this; did the acutal murder rate go down, or just the gun-related murder rate? You don't have to have a gun to kill someone.

Edit: I have created a jpg of the cartoon I spoke of earlier.

4

Author
Time
Post link
My take on this issue:

Who would be in charge disarming everyone?

Could you guarantee that all criminals, everywhere, would totally disarmed?

What guarantee would there be that governments wouldn't use the opportunity to move to tyrannical positions against their own people?

How do you explain the low murder rate in Switzerland, where it's mandatory for people to be armed (this has allowed them to maintain their neutrality)?

Do laws have any impact on those who are not willing to obey them?

Do people have a right to defend their lives, propterty, and family? If so, why would it be appropriate to dictate how?

The arguments you present are old ones...firearms are used over two million times a year in self defense. Should those people have not used them and allowed themselves to be mugged or killed?

Anyone who leaves a gun accessible to children should be locked up. I have two young children (4 & 6), I also own two rifles, both of which are locked in a safe, with trigger locks on them, the keys to which are carefully hidden.

They would have to come and take my guns, should they be outlawed.

"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." -- Jefferson`s "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power." -- An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: Darth Chaltab
I agree with everything. But you see, to me this seems common sense. Why does this even have to be a debate. Criminals aren't going to obey gunlaws, so they only affect those who ALREADY obey the law. I'm honestly considering carrying some sort of weapon in my car or something for the odd event that I ever get robbed/mugged whenever I get out on my own.

I'd make a humourous analogy right now if I could think of one.


Chaltab, consider this:

1- In the eventuality of you getting mugged (btw, how often does that happen in the town where you live???), are you really going to grab you gun and shoot the guy? If you make a sudden move to grab you gun, he could get scared and shoot you first. If you really want to counter-atack, why don't you learn the KRAV MAGA, which is a Israeli self defence fighting system developed for these situations (you'll be able to disarm the man and break his arm without killing him).

2- Let's asume you leave your gun on your car, and it get stolen. That's another gun that'll be used to kill and rob and stuff.

3- Imagine you have your gun in your home and your kids find it. Then, they decide to imitate the russian roullete scene from "The Deer Hunter".

4- If we DISARM everyone, we'll be able to achieve peace, not by grabbing more guns! Violence creates more violence, as Ghandi said: "An eye for an eye will make everyone blind". Ghandi defeated the brutal and fully armed British Empire without firing a single shot. What we need is to CLOSE DOWN the weapons factories and ARREST those who manufacture weapons. Them, we need to disarm everyone, the people AND the criminals. If you arrest a criminal, you're obviously going to take his gun away. You'll probably say "oh, if you forbid selling weapons he'll buy a weapon on black market", ok, so we need to fight the gun industry everywhere the same way we fight the drug cartels. The price of a weapon would increase drastically, it would be highly unavaliable... The violence generated by these weapons would drop, therefore dropping the NEED for more weapons, and so on...

5- Consider this: About an year ago, weapons were officially banned over here. Only police officers, the army, and people who can REALLY justify that they need a weapon can carry one of those. People who already owned weapons were asked to give them away at police stations, and they were paid back. The guns were destroyed. Gun related violence cases dropped after a few months.


1. I hate to break it too you, but organized martial arts generally are worthless save for teaching self decipline, improving self esteem, and protecting yourself from the average joe. Watch any of the first 7 ufc pay per views and you will see people with 5th degree black belts get beat by some guy who is a bouncer. Further more statistically speaking more people die in knife related violence then guns, at least in the US. Should we ban them too? If you could theoretically take away all the guns, which would never ever happen, then what do you do with the knives, the basball bats, the sharp sticks, etc?

2. Do you know how easy it is to get an illegal weapon? If you know the right people, which isnt hard to do if you are truely motivated, you could go buy a hand gun for less than 35 dollars. Heck i have been offered a .22 calibur hand gun for $15. Where there is a will there is a way.

3.Growing up as a kid we had guns in the home. I knew where they were and i knew where the ammo was for them(though it was locked up). Never once did i think how cool it would be to play russian rulett, or take the shotgun out back and play with it. Though i am not a big gun enthueist now, and my families trips to the firing range wained as we moved to the burbs, i still understand the how to handle a fire arm. I can remember sitting on the tail gate of my grandads truck in the desert watching my family (mom, grandma, dad, grandad etc.) shoot cans and other assorted safe targets. I can remeber getting my first red rider at 4 or 5 and my dad showing how where and why to use it. If you educate your children they wont do something so stupid. Growing up i had thousands upon thousands of talks about the dangers of , in combination with the handling of, guns, the tools (power and other) in the work shop, cars, knives, weed eaters, mowers, electricity, gasoline, fire, this that and the other thing. Did i do stupid things? sure like any kid, but nothing stupid enough to harm someone or something beyond home grown medical care. Give kids credit they arent little mindless minons. I remember at a very young age seeing what a gun could do to a tin can and recognizing with very little aid from my pops that it would not be good to to that to a person.

4. If there are no weapons factories who makes the guns for "those that need them". Further more if we the people have no guns than how to we protect ourselves from a corrupt authority, ie police department, governement, etc. Ultimate power ultimately corrupts. I am sorry i just dont have the faith in people you do. If we did stop gun manufacturing in all the world what makes you think that Kim Jong-Il, the many many drug lords through out the world, the uber rich psychos, bin laden, etc will stop. I am sorry i just dont want the good people to do something only to have the uber rich psychopaths not and then we all be in a world of hurt.

5. Gun related violence may have dropped, but whats happening to the murder rates and the non gun related violence rates? Of course there will be less gun violence if there are less guns, a crook doesnt have to worry about shooting any one if he is the only person on the block with the gun...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

1. I hate to break it too you, but organized martial arts generally are worthless save for teaching self decipline, improving self esteem, and protecting yourself from the average joe. Watch any of the first 7 ufc pay per views and you will see people with 5th degree black belts get beat by some guy who is a bouncer. Further more statistically speaking more people die in knife related violence then guns, at least in the US. Should we ban them too? If you could theoretically take away all the guns, which would never ever happen, then what do you do with the knives, the basball bats, the sharp sticks, etc?


My point in mentioning the Krav Maga is that it makes as much sense as buying a gun to "protect youself". If you are fast enough to grab your gun while you're having another gun pointed to your head by an unstable individual, and pulling the trigger before him, THEN perhaps you're fast enough to disarm him without actually shooting him.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

2. Do you know how easy it is to get an illegal weapon? If you know the right people, which isnt hard to do if you are truely motivated, you could go buy a hand gun for less than 35 dollars. Heck i have been offered a .22 calibur hand gun for $15. Where there is a will there is a way.


No, I don't know how easy it is to get a weapon. I know how easy it USED to be, when guns were legal over here (well, actually, it was kinda hard back then, you had to prove you knew how to shoot, prove you are mentally stable and sane, take some tests...).

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

3.Growing up as a kid we had guns in the home. I knew where they were and i knew where the ammo was for them(though it was locked up). Never once did i think how cool it would be to play russian rulett, or take the shotgun out back and play with it. Though i am not a big gun enthueist now, and my families trips to the firing range wained as we moved to the burbs, i still understand the how to handle a fire arm. I can remember sitting on the tail gate of my grandads truck in the desert watching my family (mom, grandma, dad, grandad etc.) shoot cans and other assorted safe targets. I can remeber getting my first red rider at 4 or 5 and my dad showing how where and why to use it. If you educate your children they wont do something so stupid. Growing up i had thousands upon thousands of talks about the dangers of , in combination with the handling of, guns, the tools (power and other) in the work shop, cars, knives, weed eaters, mowers, electricity, gasoline, fire, this that and the other thing. Did i do stupid things? sure like any kid, but nothing stupid enough to harm someone or something beyond home grown medical care. Give kids credit they arent little mindless minons. I remember at a very young age seeing what a gun could do to a tin can and recognizing with very little aid from my pops that it would not be good to to that to a person.


3- Three or four year old kids don't even get the concept of DEATH, much less guns. If one is available to them, what do you think may happen. And, of course, there's the Columbine scenario, which I rather not talk about due to respect.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

4. If there are no weapons factories who makes the guns for "those that need them". Further more if we the people have no guns than how to we protect ourselves from a corrupt authority, ie police department, governement, etc. Ultimate power ultimately corrupts. I am sorry i just dont have the faith in people you do. If we did stop gun manufacturing in all the world what makes you think that Kim Jong-Il, the many many drug lords through out the world, the uber rich psychos, bin laden, etc will stop. I am sorry i just dont want the good people to do something only to have the uber rich psychopaths not and then we all be in a world of hurt.


When we talk about the gun issue, there are two possible sides one can take: those who think the problem will be solved with more guns, those who think the problem will be solved with less guns. I belive the problem will be solved with LESS guns. I belive peace is the answer. If we arm everyone, the problem will NEVER go away, and therefore we are doomned to live in a world of chaos and violence forever. Violence is never the answer, NEVER. There is no need for wars if we chose to live in a cooperatively peace. If peace is an utopia, then we should all commit suicide right now, because it's pointles.

I have chosen to support peace and I'll never change my mind, even if I'm the only one in the world without a gun under my pillow.

Oh, and if you chose to keep your gun to protect yourself from Osama Bin Laden or from the president of North Korea, I say "good luck" to you.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

5. Gun related violence may have dropped, but whats happening to the murder rates and the non gun related violence rates? Of course there will be less gun violence if there are less guns, a crook doesnt have to worry about shooting any one if he is the only person on the block with the gun...


OK, so rapes didn't drop, white collar cimes didn't drop, carjacking didn't drop, so what the hell are we banning guns for anyway! I mean, if I'm going to get rid of guns, there must not be a single crime ever. Imagine you have both arms and legs broken, and there's this hypothetical medicine that can cure one arm only. You won't take it, because it won't cure your whole body? I mean, taking guns out will obviously NOT make other kinds of crimes go away, but it's a start. We now have to focus on other kinds of crimes.
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
"I hope you get Raped, TWICE! Maye things woulf feel different."

Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

1. I hate to break it too you, but organized martial arts generally are worthless save for teaching self decipline, improving self esteem, and protecting yourself from the average joe. Watch any of the first 7 ufc pay per views and you will see people with 5th degree black belts get beat by some guy who is a bouncer. Further more statistically speaking more people die in knife related violence then guns, at least in the US. Should we ban them too? If you could theoretically take away all the guns, which would never ever happen, then what do you do with the knives, the basball bats, the sharp sticks, etc?


My point in mentioning the Krav Maga is that it makes as much sense as buying a gun to "protect youself". If you are fast enough to grab your gun while you're having another gun pointed to your head by an unstable individual, and pulling the trigger before him, THEN perhaps you're fast enough to disarm him without actually shooting him.



then you dont know how to use a gun. If you have ever had a class their are systematic ways to stop the gun from being "snatched" out of your hand. That happens in the movies, but if you know what you are doing and keep a good distance and use the right technique it wont happen.

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

2. Do you know how easy it is to get an illegal weapon? If you know the right people, which isnt hard to do if you are truely motivated, you could go buy a hand gun for less than 35 dollars. Heck i have been offered a .22 calibur hand gun for $15. Where there is a will there is a way.


No, I don't know how easy it is to get a weapon. I know how easy it USED to be, when guns were legal over here (well, actually, it was kinda hard back then, you had to prove you knew how to shoot, prove you are mentally stable and sane, take some tests...).


I cant speak from where you are, forgive me if its not brazil, but i can for where i am from , and though i have moved since my last offer to by a guy for 15 dollars i am more than sure i could have a hand gun by tuesday if i really really wanted too.


Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

3.Growing up as a kid we had guns in the home. I knew where they were and i knew where the ammo was for them(though it was locked up). Never once did i think how cool it would be to play russian rulett, or take the shotgun out back and play with it. Though i am not a big gun enthueist now, and my families trips to the firing range wained as we moved to the burbs, i still understand the how to handle a fire arm. I can remember sitting on the tail gate of my grandads truck in the desert watching my family (mom, grandma, dad, grandad etc.) shoot cans and other assorted safe targets. I can remeber getting my first red rider at 4 or 5 and my dad showing how where and why to use it. If you educate your children they wont do something so stupid. Growing up i had thousands upon thousands of talks about the dangers of , in combination with the handling of, guns, the tools (power and other) in the work shop, cars, knives, weed eaters, mowers, electricity, gasoline, fire, this that and the other thing. Did i do stupid things? sure like any kid, but nothing stupid enough to harm someone or something beyond home grown medical care. Give kids credit they arent little mindless minons. I remember at a very young age seeing what a gun could do to a tin can and recognizing with very little aid from my pops that it would not be good to to that to a person.


3- Three or four year old kids don't even get the concept of DEATH, much less guns. If one is available to them, what do you think may happen. And, of course, there's the Columbine scenario, which I rather not talk about due to respect.

i am with you on not getting into the columbine issue, but i will say this, literally millons of "kids" have access to guns and dont do that, to simply blame guns for the horrific actions of a few is a gross gereralization.

As for kids and the concept of death, they may not be able to grasp the entirety of the concept of death, but they certainly can understand the idea that something isnt living again, that it isnt coming back, their fish aint gonna ever swim again, that hamster is done running on the wheel and that granny aint ever gonna be home again. Give kid some credit. They can also begin to understand what tools are for. I knew what a tooth brush was for at 3 or 4, why couldnt i understand that a projectile comes out of a gun? Watch 3 and 4 year olds play, they are doing a great deal of mimicing, but there is a basic understanding of concepts aka a 2 year old know fire = hot. No where did i state you could teach a child everything about guns, merely that if they are raised with them they can be trained how to use them properly

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

4. If there are no weapons factories who makes the guns for "those that need them". Further more if we the people have no guns than how to we protect ourselves from a corrupt authority, ie police department, governement, etc. Ultimate power ultimately corrupts. I am sorry i just dont have the faith in people you do. If we did stop gun manufacturing in all the world what makes you think that Kim Jong-Il, the many many drug lords through out the world, the uber rich psychos, bin laden, etc will stop. I am sorry i just dont want the good people to do something only to have the uber rich psychopaths not and then we all be in a world of hurt.


When we talk about the gun issue, there are two possible sides one can take: those who think the problem will be solved with more guns, those who think the problem will be solved with less guns. I belive the problem will be solved with LESS guns. I belive peace is the answer. If we arm everyone, the problem will NEVER go away, and therefore we are doomned to live in a world of chaos and violence forever. Violence is never the answer, NEVER. There is no need for wars if we chose to live in a cooperatively peace. If peace is an utopia, then we should all commit suicide right now, because it's pointles.

I have chosen to support peace and I'll never change my mind, even if I'm the only one in the world without a gun under my pillow.

Oh, and if you chose to keep your gun to protect yourself from Osama Bin Laden or from the president of North Korea, I say "good luck" to you.

Quote


did you see Sage's point on switerland where they do arm everyone. I too would love to live in peace, but imo that is nothin more than a dream. In my mind the world is full of evil hateful people many of which would stab, shoot, kick to get what they want. We are doomed to live in a world of chaos and violence, it has always been that way and will always be that way look at history. Look at econimics for a second, the reason that it works so well is that it embraces man potential greed and corruption and sets up rules to govern it. where as other economic systems are based upon trusting others. Perhaps we just see things differently...

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

5. Gun related violence may have dropped, but whats happening to the murder rates and the non gun related violence rates? Of course there will be less gun violence if there are less guns, a crook doesnt have to worry about shooting any one if he is the only person on the block with the
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
OK I'll answer the ones I think I could add anything else. You'd probably think I'm repeating myself on the other questions (not exactly questions, but...)

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

wow way to dodge the question. i was looking for if other crimes rose, you no from people not being able to stop them. You are a lot less likely to get robbed if you have a gun under the counter, or car jacked if you can defend yourself. Of course simply stating % a is smaller then %b is over simplifying.


Did I dodge the question? Sorry. What I tried to say is that no, the number of occurences of other crimes did not rose. Gun related incidents did drop. And by the way, we have a STRONG pro-gun comunity here, that thinks the same way you do.


Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

So let me ask you a question, you and i are both asleep in our respected homes, a crook breaks into both our homes, I grab the 410 shot gun from under my bed, load it and prepare to defend my family, you do what??? call the cops and wait the 10 minutes for them to arrive.


Can i ask you a quesiton, what type of neighborhood did you grow up in???


First the last question: Quite a violent one. I live in the second most violent city in Brazil, maybe the... 8th or 9th most violent city in the world. I was not raised in the most violent areas, but I was also not in a good area either. I've been mugged with a gun pointed to my head once.

The second question: Yes, I'd perhaps call the cops. As would do 99% of the population here, who dosen't own a gun. I see your point, the "cut the middleman" thing and "protect" your own people. But what I intend to do is to make sure those criminals never get to my house. We should focus on making sure people don't get into crime at all. We should focus on preventing violence to happen in first place, instead of just grabbing a bigger gun and shooting whoever trespasses my properties.

Now let me ask you, do you live in a violent neighborhhod? Ever needed to fire your gun? (I'm not sure you have one)



Now, before we continue this conversation, PLEASE, please, let's not turn this polite discussion into a fight. I'm offering my point of view, and I'm accepting yours. I can see your point, I really do, and I know you at least understand mine - you don't necessarily agree, but you understand what I'm talking about. Is any of us right about such topic? Hell no, these are opinions, no one is fully correct. What I intend to do when I express my opinion is never to force someone to accept it, I don't want that, we are free to make our own choices. What I want is to make sure another point of view is known. If we politely discuss a topic and all the points of views and issues are discussed, then with that full knoledge of the topic we can make a clear decision... LOL I'm not sure I made myself clear

* raises hands, offering to shake it *
I have nothing against anyone in this forum and I never will - I felt our conversation got a little bit too harsh and I don't want this to get ugly. OK?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
The simple point of this is discussion is this: gun control doesn't work. Canada put together a gun registry, and it turned into a money pit, costing taxpayers billions of dollars. I don't carry a gun, and I'm not sure if I will anytime in the future, but most gun owners I know a re responsible individuals who lock their guns and ammunition in separate cabinets and are very clear with their children about the dangers of mishandling such weaponry. Most laws controlling and/or barring the sale and possession of guns do not work because they are either too broad or too narrow.
Do I think that letting the assalut weapons ban die is a good idea? Yes. Do I agree with the conceal/carry law? Yes, because it places certain controls on the privilege of concealing or carrying a handgun. Yes, you read that right: privilege. Guns should be licenced in the same way that motor vehicles are licenced. Are people without licences still going to commit crimes with both? Absolutely. Can it be kept to a minimum by ensuring that law abiding citizens know how to operate these items with a licencing system. Yes. The great thing is, this type of control is already in place. When government tries to get greater control than this, you have a problem, because it is crossing the line from protection into interference.

Princess Leia: I happen to like nice men.
Han Solo: I'm a nice man.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
OK I'll answer the ones I think I could add anything else. You'd probably think I'm repeating myself on the other questions (not exactly questions, but...)

Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

wow way to dodge the question. i was looking for if other crimes rose, you no from people not being able to stop them. You are a lot less likely to get robbed if you have a gun under the counter, or car jacked if you can defend yourself. Of course simply stating % a is smaller then %b is over simplifying.


Did I dodge the question? Sorry. What I tried to say is that no, the number of occurences of other crimes did not rose. Gun related incidents did drop. And by the way, we have a STRONG pro-gun comunity here, that thinks the same way you do.


Quote
Originally posted by: Kingsama

So let me ask you a question, you and i are both asleep in our respected homes, a crook breaks into both our homes, I grab the 410 shot gun from under my bed, load it and prepare to defend my family, you do what??? call the cops and wait the 10 minutes for them to arrive.


Can i ask you a quesiton, what type of neighborhood did you grow up in???


First the last question: Quite a violent one. I live in the second most violent city in Brazil, maybe the... 8th or 9th most violent city in the world. I was not raised in the most violent areas, but I was also not in a good area either. I've been mugged with a gun pointed to my head once.

The second question: Yes, I'd perhaps call the cops. As would do 99% of the population here, who dosen't own a gun. I see your point, the "cut the middleman" thing and "protect" your own people. But what I intend to do is to make sure those criminals never get to my house. We should focus on making sure people don't get into crime at all. We should focus on preventing violence to happen in first place, instead of just grabbing a bigger gun and shooting whoever trespasses my properties.

Now let me ask you, do you live in a violent neighborhhod? Ever needed to fire your gun? (I'm not sure you have one)



Now, before we continue this conversation, PLEASE, please, let's not turn this polite discussion into a fight. I'm offering my point of view, and I'm accepting yours. I can see your point, I really do, and I know you at least understand mine - you don't necessarily agree, but you understand what I'm talking about. Is any of us right about such topic? Hell no, these are opinions, no one is fully correct. What I intend to do when I express my opinion is never to force someone to accept it, I don't want that, we are free to make our own choices. What I want is to make sure another point of view is known. If we politely discuss a topic and all the points of views and issues are discussed, then with that full knoledge of the topic we can make a clear decision... LOL I'm not sure I made myself clear

* raises hands, offering to shake it *
I have nothing against anyone in this forum and I never will - I felt our conversation got a little bit too harsh and I don't want this to get ugly. OK?



Last things first...

I am with you, i love this forum and the people in it. It is one of the most well read, well spoken places i have had the pleasure of visiting. And i didnt mean to seem to go agro on you(but can see why you might have thought so). I just love to have a good debate sometimes and i am very competative. So i apologize if i came across to strong, i really enjoy your POV and have done so ever since joining up here. Do i agree with you? generally no, but i still apreciate what you have to say, i would hate to live in a world full of people like me, the world needs balance or else things would be horrible. The last thing i want is for this to get ugly too. so in short, we're cool. and please forgive my agro banter, i talk that way to my friends, and at times i forget that you only see me and a avatar and text, where as they know me. One day i will get the hang of this internet thing...

By the By where are you from in Brazil i have a very dear friend in Sao Paulo, yes i know its a huge country and uber city so i dont expect you to know them. By the way the were you from question was not just for debate purposes, i was just trying to see a lil of your background so i could understand where you are coming from.


as for where i grew up, i am from the country. I took minutes to get to the neighbors not seconds. So we didnt really see a whole lot of folks. I do own two guns though, one is more a collectors thing, and the other just a .22 rifle which i wouldnt wield for household protection. In time i will probably buy a pistol grip 410 for the house though as well as some sort of hand gun. Thank G-d i have been blessed with the finacial ability to live in a nice community, so i dont have to worry about this as much as others. I have never had to use a gun for protection, but i do know people that have. I m only 24 and have only lived in my own home for 2 years now so its not like i have had alot of experience. As for the home invasion, dont get me wrong, i would call the cops too, but i would want some protection in the mean time. My families house has never burned down, but i will always have home owners insurance just in case it does.

I hole heartedly agree that education and social intervention is the way to go, but like with insurance i just want a back up plan. I work with at risk youth and am trying to make a difference, but i have to say for every 2 or 3 we reach 1 gets lost. I just never want to be in a position to where i didnt have the means to protect my wife and my kids. In my mind the gov, and the police are incapable of making me 100% safe and i just couldnt live with myself if something happened and i couldnt stop it...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
First, I must also apologise if I've been rude or anything of the sort, it was not my intention. I also get carried away sometimes.

I understand and accept your point of view on guns, but I hope that this conversation will at least bring some wisdom on both of us... So, after all we discussed, I ask you to yes, keep the gun, it's your right if you want to, but please do be careful... Don't show it off to people, if you're going to transport it unload it first, if you have kids make sure they can't reach it/find it and if (or when) they are old enough, explain to them that what that is and they should never touch it or anything... And if you ever realize you'll actually need it, do think if you really need it, if you're merely fighting with someone, if the person is harming you but is clearly unnarmed, don't use it... And if you REALLY, have to use it, please try aiming for the leg or something, I mean, incapacitate someone should be your goal, you're not trying to get more kills as possible, right?

I'm pretty sure you're balanced enough not to do something dangerous with the weapon, and I'm confident that you'll never need to fire at anyone, at lease I that's what I hope for.

As for me, I'll avaliate this issue better and perhaps I might reconsider. I wouldn't buy a gun (if those were available), not only because of my point of view, but because I don't think I can shoot a gun... I'd probably shoot my own foot...
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
I have some thoughts on the issues that I'd like share. I can see logic on both sides.

Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller

Specifically, I recall a story where 2 men attempted to rob a Blockbuster Video. They went in with a shotgun and demanded money from the cash register. A man with a conceal-carry permit and his weapon pulled it out and told the 2 men than if they didn't leave, he'd shoot them. They must not have thought he'd do it, because they did not leave. So he shot them both (both in the leg I believe).
Without conceal-carry, not only would the criminals have gotten away, but they might have shot people in the store as well. By injuring the criminals, the man prevented several crimes.


It may seem like the man did the right thing but consider this. Maybe the guy was just going to take the money and run and didn't intend to shoot unless someone put up a fight.
If that is the case, the best thing to do is to let the criminal steal the money and let him leave, and then call the cops to deal with the criminal. That way no one gets hurt. What if the man had missed and hit an innocent bystander? What if he missed and the criminal went nuts and started shooting people?

do we need guns? maybe.

do we need assault rifles? no. I say ban all assault rifles.


someone meantioned the need to have guns to defend against our government if it turned against the will of the people. Do you really think ordinary citizens could stand against the trained US miltitary? with their tanks, fighter jets, nuclear missiles, and other hightech weapons using handguns? come on this is 2005 not 1776. If the military turns on us, wheither we have guns or not, we are toast.

also meantioned was the fear of a child playing with the gun as a toy and shooting him or herself. Someone tried to refute this by saying that kids are smart enough to know not to play guns. I would agree most kids are smart enough, but the fact is every once in awhile it happens. A kid plays with a gun and accidentally shoots and kills him/herself or someone else. No matter what you do, you are not going to be able to stop it from happening. You can lower the chance of it happened, but it will stll happen every once in awhile as long as people own guns.

someone else meantioned learning martial arts instead of getting a gun. What if the criminal also knew martial arts? What if the criminal was too strong for martial arts to work against? Please show me, via the use of the martiat arts how I can stop a bullet.

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite


The second question: Yes, I'd perhaps call the cops. As would do 99% of the population here, who dosen't own a gun. I see your point, the "cut the middleman" thing and "protect" your own people. But what I intend to do is to make sure those criminals never get to my house. We should focus on making sure people don't get into crime at all. We should focus on preventing violence to happen in first place, instead of just grabbing a bigger gun and shooting whoever trespasses my properties.


the problem with your logic here is that you can do everything you can do to prevent violence, everything to prevent people from becoming criminals in the first place, but there are still going to be criminals and there is still going to be violence. That is just the way humanity is. But by all means do everything you can do to prevent both. Now, in the instance meantioned, I would want to have a gun. Yes, I'd also call the cops but odds are the cops would not arrive in time to prevent the criminal from doing harm to me or my family. The only way in this instance to prevent the harm is to defend myself and my family. You might try reasoning with the guy, but he may just be a nutcase who came to your house for the sole purpose of shooting people for the joy of it, or perhaps his intent is rape. If either were the case the only thing you can do is defend yourself.

would a total gun ban work? I doubt it. They tried to ban alcohol in the 20's, it didn't work All it did was make the mob more powerful. We have been fighting a war against drugs that hasn't worked. Drugs are illegal but people are somehow still getting them. You shut down all the gun factories, illegal ones are going to pop up. Allow only cops and soldiers to carry them, criminal will steal them. Also in order for the cops and soldiers to get guns someone has to make them, all the criminal has to do to get a gun is find a dishonest person who works at the factory that makes the guns for the cop and the soldier and bribe the guy. Finally unless all countries ban guns, if guns are made illegal in the USA, a person can just go to a country where gun are still legal and buy one there and then sneak it back into the USA. Criminals will always find a way.

I think the best bet is some form of gun control where people can only buy guns of limited power and not guns that are designed to be used by the Terminator and Rambo, where we can limit who can buy guns via the use of gun licenses, where we can do extremely thorough backround checks. I don't like it, but I don't know what else to do.


Conceal weapons? I still can't make up my mind on

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite

I understand and accept your point of view on guns, but I hope that this conversation will at least bring some wisdom on both of us... So, after all we discussed, I ask you to yes, keep the gun, it's your right if you want to, but please do be careful... Don't show it off to people, if you're going to transport it unload it first, if you have kids make sure they can't reach it/find it and if (or when) they are old enough, explain to them that what that is and they should never touch it or anything... And if you ever realize you'll actually need it, do think if you really need it, if you're merely fighting with someone, if the person is harming you but is clearly unnarmed, don't use it... And if you REALLY, have to use it, please try aiming for the leg or something, I mean, incapacitate someone should be your goal, you're not trying to get more kills as possible, right?


on this we agree except for aiming for the leg. I know this sound horrible, but every expert tell you not to do this. Why? because a person wounded in the leg can still shoot back. Also there is a greater chance of missing your target if you aim for the leg instead of the chest or the stomach. Then maybe after you miss, the criminal shoots at you and doesn't miss(and he is probably not going to aim for the leg). Sorry, but ask any expert on the subject and that is what they will say. I wish it were not true.

sorry for rambling on like this, but I just wanted to share my thoughts on the issues.
Author
Time
Post link
Rambling is fine Warbler, no need to apologize. You gave your thoughts, just what I wanted.

Now, when to analyzed that Blockbuster situation, you said "Maybe the guy was just going to take the money and run and didn't intend to shoot unless someone put up a fight."

You are spending time considering the thoughts and intends of a criminal.
1. The man in the store had to make a quick decision as to what to do.
2. There is no way to know the intents of anyone, you can only make assumptions. If I see a man walk into a Blockbuster with a shotgun, what conclusion should be drawn?

About assault weapons:
My response to you Warbler depends on how I read into what you wrote.
"do we need assault rifles?"
--The invention of the assault rifle was unneccessary. In that sense we did not ever need assault rifles.

"do we need assault rifles?"
--Since they do exist and criminals often do not stop to question the legal implications of having one, I can see where the public would want to feel protected and want to be allowed to use them as well.

About aiming for the leg:
I will give you that someone shot in the leg can fire back, but aiming for the chest or stomach is not the answer either.
A shot to the chest can do serious damage to the heart or lungs. If the shot is "lucky", the ribcage can actually work against the body. A bullet can ricoche around inside doing lots more damage.

A shot to the stomach threatens the liver, intestines, plenty of other lymphatic organs as well (not to mention the stomach itself. I've also heard that the stomach is the most painful place to be shot.

Hitting them just about anywhere will leave them in enough pain to keep them from returning fire for at least a few seconds, the leg is non-vital and prevents them from standing.
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller

You are spending time considering the thoughts and intends of a criminal.
1. The man in the store had to make a quick decision as to what to do.
2. There is no way to know the intents of anyone, you can only make assumptions. If I see a man walk into a Blockbuster with a shotgun, what conclusion should be drawn?


All I'm saying that most store clerks and bank tellers are trained to let the criminal take what he wants and leave, instead of trying to interfer and risk getting people hurt. That risked turn a simple robbery into a murder scene. I say again what if he missed and hit a bystander, what if the criminals fired back and hit him or a bystander?

Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller

About assault weapons:
My response to you Warbler depends on how I read into what you wrote.
"do we need assault rifles?"
--The invention of the assault rifle was unneccessary. In that sense we did not ever need assault rifles.

"do we need assault rifles?"
--Since they do exist and criminals often do not stop to question the legal implications of having one, I can see where the public would want to feel protected and want to be allowed to use them as well.


My point here is this. Assault rifles are made for the military, not for ordinary civilians. Hand guns provide enough protection. Ordinary civilians do not need Assault rifles.

Quote
Originally posted by: starkiller
About aiming for the leg:
I will give you that someone shot in the leg can fire back, but aiming for the chest or stomach is not the answer either.
A shot to the chest can do serious damage to the heart or lungs. If the shot is "lucky", the ribcage can actually work against the body. A bullet can ricoche around inside doing lots more damage.

A shot to the stomach threatens the liver, intestines, plenty of other lymphatic organs as well (not to mention the stomach itself. I've also heard that the stomach is the most painful place to be shot.

Hitting them just about anywhere will leave them in enough pain to keep them from returning fire for at least a few seconds, the leg is non-vital and prevents them from standing.


All I'm saying is what any law enforcement/miltitary expert would tell you. Yes, hitting someone in the stomach or chest would hurt more and do more damage and that's the point. You have made the desion to shoot someone because if you don't they will shoot you. The main objective in shooting the criminal, is to render him incapable of shooting you or someone else. What is more likely to accomplish that goal? Aiming for the harder to hit target, the legs, where even if you manage to hit your target he might still be able to fire back, or aiming for the easier target stomach/chest area? As you said a shot to the chest can do more damage, and a shot to the stomach is more painful and therefor either will more likely render the criminal incapable of firing back than a shot to the leg. I know it sounds terrible, but its the truth.

Consider two situations:

  1. a man walks into your house with the intent to kill you and your family, you get your gun, shoot him in the leg then he fires backs and kills you and your family.

  2. a man walks into your house with the intent to kill you and your family, you get your gun, shoot him in the chest/stomach he collaspes and dies, but you and your family are unharmed.

which would you rather have happen?
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
First, I must also apologise if I've been rude or anything of the sort, it was not my intention. I also get carried away sometimes.

I understand and accept your point of view on guns, but I hope that this conversation will at least bring some wisdom on both of us... So, after all we discussed, I ask you to yes, keep the gun, it's your right if you want to, but please do be careful... Don't show it off to people, if you're going to transport it unload it first, if you have kids make sure they can't reach it/find it and if (or when) they are old enough, explain to them that what that is and they should never touch it or anything... And if you ever realize you'll actually need it, do think if you really need it, if you're merely fighting with someone, if the person is harming you but is clearly unnarmed, don't use it... And if you REALLY, have to use it, please try aiming for the leg or something, I mean, incapacitate someone should be your goal, you're not trying to get more kills as possible, right?

I'm pretty sure you're balanced enough not to do something dangerous with the weapon, and I'm confident that you'll never need to fire at anyone, at lease I that's what I hope for.

As for me, I'll avaliate this issue better and perhaps I might reconsider. I wouldn't buy a gun (if those were available), not only because of my point of view, but because I don't think I can shoot a gun... I'd probably shoot my own foot...



Dont get me wrong i am not for the manditory arming of all citizens, nor am i for easy availablity of weapons. I think that defeinate guidelines need to be put into place to do everything you can to keep guns out of the wrong people hands, including thorough background checks, registration(though there are aspects about types of registration that give me the heeby geebies), manditory classes/testing for gun owners, etc. Though i for the expiring of the assualt weapons ban because of the loopholes that were outlined initially.

If i ever guns my kids will be brought up understanding what guns are and be educated. I guess it may be a strange thought to many others here, but i can remember walking through my aunts home, which has rifles literally behind most of the doors, and never thinking about picking one up and playing with it.

As for handguns for self defence and selective mamings, hate to break it to you but neither are very effective, you best bet is to always aim for the chest, and to in the case of home invasion use a shot gun. In the heat of the moment you freak out and its truely takes a trained pro, to successfully aim and connect with a shot to the extremities. If some one is in my house i am shooting for the chest preferably with a 4 10. Again more people die in knife fights then they do in gun fights, its not as easy to point and shoot as it looks in the arcades or tv.



Moving on...

One point that i would bring up is what about guns for hobbiest? Maybe i am just a country boy, but i know tons of folks who love nothing more than disappearing into the woods for a couple of days and hunting. Personally i am not the type that kills much of anything, including insects, but hey if you want to legally go hunting more power to you. Further more, what about those that collect guns, again not my cup of tea, but i know people who love to buy and use firearms, including assault rifles. They have paid a ton of money, taken a ton of classes, and have been federally registerd in order to enjoy there hobby and they love to go to the range and unload some high powered rounds at the range.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v170/Kingsama/samasig.jpg
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
When we talk about the gun issue, there are two possible sides one can take: those who think the problem will be solved with more guns, those who think the problem will be solved with less guns. I belive the problem will be solved with LESS guns. I belive peace is the answer. If we arm everyone, the problem will NEVER go away, and therefore we are doomned to live in a world of chaos and violence forever. Violence is never the answer, NEVER. There is no need for wars if we chose to live in a cooperatively peace. If peace is an utopia, then we should all commit suicide right now, because it's pointles.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, this solution seems extremely unlikely to ever happen, but I still agree, and I will be the change I want to see.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
When we talk about the gun issue, there are two possible sides one can take: those who think the problem will be solved with more guns, those who think the problem will be solved with less guns. I belive the problem will be solved with LESS guns. I belive peace is the answer. If we arm everyone, the problem will NEVER go away, and therefore we are doomned to live in a world of chaos and violence forever. Violence is never the answer, NEVER. There is no need for wars if we chose to live in a cooperatively peace. If peace is an utopia, then we should all commit suicide right now, because it's pointles.

I totally agree. Unfortunately, this solution seems extremely unlikely to ever happen, but I still agree, and I will be the change I want to see.


So long as the criminals and tyrannical governments of the world would remain armed, I too would choose to remain armed. Peace is good, but it's not man's natural state. If the last 15,000 years have taught us anything, it's that peace is only the name for time between wars, and that man is a killer.

Yoda: What's the violent crime rate in UK now that almost all guns have been outlawed? The REAL rate, not the ones Labour was throwing around during the election...I'm genuinely curious, as I hear some pretty horrid stories. Do you feel that the criminals are more bold now?

There's been discussion about what to do in the event your home is broken into, including foolishly going for a wound instead of shooting to kill. Shooting to wound is almost laughable. Anyone who can hit a crook in the leg in a darkened room while still being half asleep themselves should get some type of medal. No, the rule is shoot the biggest thing you can see and keep shooting. As for the legal ramifications...where I live a law was passed a couple of years ago stating that a criminal breaking into someone's home is assuming the risk of being shot. Yes, for a while criminals shot in the act were actually suing the homeowners who shot them until this law was passed.

Does a person have the right to defend themselves? In Florida, people were actually required by law to either submit to their attacker, or run away. That is a joke, and it's a prime example of socialist thinking, ie: no value on individual lives. Thank God a few weeks ago a "stand your ground" law was passed, meaning a citizen could defend themselves with lethal force in public if required without fear of being arrested. The leftist media as always is predicting the rise of a new wild west in Florida, where the slightest provocation will lead to gun battles in the streets. As usual they'll be proven wrong.

The bottom line as far as I'm concerned is this: I will not cede the right to protect the lives or property of myself or my family to the state. They have proven time and time again that they are not willing or able to give us that protection. I will also not make it easier on them to sieze my firearms by cheerfuly cooperating with confiscation schemes or "buy backs" that never work. I have personally lobbied to protect gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits that are being used to sue them out of existence, with tacit support from the US government.

While we're discussing legality: The law in the US used to be based on English Common Law, and English "Castle" Law, hearkening back to "a man's home is his castle". This has not been the case since the environmentalist movement began usurping our property rights ("You can't dig a hole there! There might be an environmental impact!!"). In it's never ending quest to garner more power, the Federal Government of the US has begun to assert itself more and more over property owners. In regards to gun control, the Clinton administration tried to make it mandatory that private gun owners store their weapons with trigger locks in their homes. My question is: Does a central government have the right to mandate how something is stored in my home?

Another issue was raised about whether or not regular citizens could actually succeed against a strong military. To this I say that history is repleat with examples of successful uprisings with help from other interested parties. For example: The uprising in Northern Ireland in the early part of the 1900's. They were given rifles by Germany (to strike at England) and they succeeded.

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you..." Samuel Adams.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

So long as the criminals and tyrannical governments of the world would remain armed, I too would choose to remain armed. Peace is good, but it's not man's natural state. If the last 15,000 years have taught us anything, it's that peace is only the name for time between wars, and that man is a killer.


I'm a man, and I'm not a killer. I'm pretty sure you're not a killer as well. Why can't all men be like that?
“Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” — Nazi Reich Marshal Hermann Goering
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSageYoda: What's the violent crime rate in UK now that almost all guns have been outlawed? The REAL rate, not the ones Labour was throwing around during the election...I'm genuinely curious, as I hear some pretty horrid stories. Do you feel that the criminals are more bold now?

Well, as far as I know guns were never legal in recent history in the UK, certainly not in the last 60 years, but in answer to your question, gun crime in England seems to be on the up. It's mostly gangs or drug dealers killing each other rather than innocent people on the street, and gun crime is still very low compared to other crime and other countries, but I have noticed an upward trend. However, I am not scared to walk unarmed in my home city of London, but I am a little worried in L.A (where my wife comes from and we visit often and are moving there in autumn). In England I have never known anyone, not even a friend of a friend of a friend who has been the victim of gun crime but in L.A I have many friends who either have been threatened at gunpoint or know someone who has been shot, etc. So, this is a really tough problem, and I see both arguments I guess, but personally I don't think more guns is the answer. I don't know what is though, unless somebody invents some kind of machine that makes every gun in the world evaporate and the knowledge and desire to build them vanish also.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: Yoda Is Your Father
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSageYoda: What's the violent crime rate in UK now that almost all guns have been outlawed? The REAL rate, not the ones Labour was throwing around during the election...I'm genuinely curious, as I hear some pretty horrid stories. Do you feel that the criminals are more bold now?

Well, as far as I know guns were never legal in recent history in the UK, certainly not in the last 60 years, but in answer to your question, gun crime in England seems to be on the up. It's mostly gangs or drug dealers killing each other rather than innocent people on the street, and gun crime is still very low compared to other crime and other countries, but I have noticed an upward trend. However, I am not scared to walk unarmed in my home city of London, but I am a little worried in L.A (where my wife comes from and we visit often and are moving there in autumn). In England I have never known anyone, not even a friend of a friend of a friend who has been the victim of gun crime but in L.A I have many friends who either have been threatened at gunpoint or know someone who has been shot, etc. So, this is a really tough problem, and I see both arguments I guess, but personally I don't think more guns is the answer. I don't know what is though, unless somebody invents some kind of machine that makes every gun in the world evaporate and the knowledge and desire to build them vanish also.


That is interesting. Thanks for the info.

The problem in LA is that California has very stringent gun control laws, especially in LA, where it's very difficult for a law abiding citizen to get a gun legally. During the Rodney King riots the only stores that weren't looted were the ones where their owners defended them with guns. Same thing in NYC. They've outright stated many times that they don't want citizens owning guns. I wouldn't walk unarmed in MANY parts of NYC in the daytime, let alone at night.
Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage

So long as the criminals and tyrannical governments of the world would remain armed, I too would choose to remain armed. Peace is good, but it's not man's natural state. If the last 15,000 years have taught us anything, it's that peace is only the name for time between wars, and that man is a killer.


I'm a man, and I'm not a killer. I'm pretty sure you're not a killer as well. Why can't all men be like that?


Your misinterpretation not withstanding, man as a species is a killer. So....there's no circumstance in which you'd kill? Even to defend your own life, if you had the means?

Under the right circumstances, everyone is capable of killing.

Nemo me impune lacessit

http://ttrim.blogspot.com
Author
Time
Post link
Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage


Another issue was raised about whether or not regular citizens could actually succeed against a strong military. To this I say that history is repleat with examples of successful uprisings with help from other interested parties. For example: The uprising in Northern Ireland in the early part of the 1900's. They were given rifles by Germany (to strike at England) and they succeeded.


England of the of the early 1900's was nowhere near as powerful as the US military of today. At that point and time did the English military have nuclear weapons?

Quote
Originally posted by: ricarleite


I'm a man, and I'm not a killer. I'm pretty sure you're not a killer as well. Why can't all men be like that?


ask Hitler and Stalin that.

Quote
Originally posted by: JediSage
In Florida, people were actually required by law to either submit to their attacker, or run away.


Let me get this straight, in Florida if a person came into my home with the intent to kill me and prevented me from escaping, I would be legally required to "submit" and let him kill me? That is absurd!

Author
Time
Post link
Please tell me your're making that up, sage!

That is the most moronic absurd law I have ever heard of, and I've heard of some really weird ones.

4