Gun control

[185248]

And people say that those who advocate for the continued legality of small arms are paranoid.

You have utterly ignored the evidence I have brought forth suggesting that guns in the US do more good than harm. You have also ignored the decreasing rates of murder and violent crime and their coincidence with the historically unprecedented legalization of concealed handgun carry by civilians.

And now you want to tell us that we're twenty years away from your view of Afghanistan.

Evidence? Prove to me gun violence without exception is good for a country, any country. I will accept your argument, if. Who is good and who is bad? You guys can't even distiguish, unless it it is someone outside your jurisdiction.

Guns in the hands that do bad? Guns in the hands of minors... You want to shoot down enemy aircraft, soldiers or casa nostra then go for it. You start picking up the pieces and the wounded from a shooting in your own country while the USA and me, us, send soldiers to another to prevent this from happening, innocent kids are being killed by madmen. But yet it is happening on your own soil.

Am I being slightly slurred as why the reasoning the US and we do also, send soldiers to die in another country is to stop innocents from being killed ? Yet, you can't stop it in your own because of a second movement or something?

Then why invade them in the first place because they were doing a mighty fine job of killing innocent people, kids and stuff all by themselves with their freedom of gun laws, and gas and car bombs..and whatever. 10 or 12 years now? Has it made a difference? No. Ah well. can I buy another ticket for the merry-go-round ferryman? " Not untill you get me to the other side" Me and the Ferryman are on good terms ya know.

Whoooops, we don't want them to do as we do, we want them to do as we say. shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

I am so glad though that someone else does not use fucking word. I would fuck you all, but word prevents me from doing so.

Thank goodness for spelljack

 

[Bardox]

It's not Gun control it's Assault Weapons Control. When you say gun control conservatives clutch their hunting rifles and Magnums while screaming "NOOOOOOooooooo!" Assault weapons control on the other hand is harder (if not impossible) to defend. Defend assault weapons to me. Make an arguement that justifies a civilian owning an AR or SMG.

 

[Blacksun]

Evidence? Prove to me gun violence without exception is good for a country, any country. I will accept your argument, if. Who is good and who is bad? You guys can't even distiguish, unless it it is someone outside your jurisdiction.

Guns in the hands that do bad? Guns in the hands of minors... You want to shoot down enemy aircraft, soldiers or casa nostra then go for it. You start picking up the pieces and the wounded from a shooting in your own country while the USA and me, us, send soldiers to another to prevent this from happening, innocent kids are being killed by madmen. But yet it is happening on your own soil.

Am I being slightly slurred as why the reasoning the US and we do also, send soldiers to die in another country is to stop innocents from being killed ? Yet, you can't stop it in your own because of a second movement or something?

I find your post difficult to read, but I will try to respond to some of the points I think you are making. You seem to take issue with US foreign policy, and you have my utmost sympathy with that regard, but it's an issue for another thread, because it has no relevance here.

Gun ownership is good for the US. Gary Kleck estimates 2.5 million defensive gun uses per year, and no one seriously estimates anything under 800,000 defensive gun uses per year.

Since 1987, we have had a concealed carry revolution sweep the US. Before that, you could count on one hand the number of states that allowed licensed citizens to carry handguns. Now, most states do. See the GIF under the history subsection here.
Concealed carry in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Given that this concealed carry revolution coincides with less murder and less violent crime, it makes no sense to argue that liberalized concealed carry laws cause murder and violent crime.

We had a federal "assault weapons" ban from 1994 to 2004. There is no evidence to suggest that it affected crime or murder in general, or even crime with "assault weapons" in particular. As an example of its uselessness, Columbine happened in '99 and the killers used a TEC-9.

Respectfully, you make great appeals to emotion and intuition, but you are not addressing my arguments, substantiating your points, or addressing the facts I cite.

It's not Gun control it's Assault Weapons Control. When you say gun control conservatives clutch their hunting rifles and Magnums while screaming "NOOOOOOooooooo!" Assault weapons control on the other hand is harder (if not impossible) to defend. Defend assault weapons to me. Make an arguement that justifies a civilian owning an AR or SMG.

Well, I am no conservative, nor am I a hunter. I do not own a revolver or bolt action rifle.

Submachineguns have been heavily restricted since 1934, as they are full-auto firearms. Please look up the NFA for clarification, and note that a legally owned submachinegun was used in precisely one murder... when an off-duty cop shot someone with his personal Ingram.

Assault rifles have been heavily restricted since the NFA as well, and have not been involved in any violent crimes since then.

It's true that you can buy things that are called "AK-47" or "FN-FAL", but they are not assault rifles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjM9fcEzSJ0

We're on a very, very slippery slope if we ban true assault rifles, then so-called "assault weapons" along with magazines whose capacities exceed some arbitrary number.

It's noteworthy that the "hunting rifles" of today are nothing more than rehashes of the military rifles of WWI. They're also more powerful than the "assault weapons" that are so vilified today.

I think the most powerful argument I can make in favor of the continued legalization of "assault weapons" ownership among civilians is that I am a civilian, and I own a semi-auto AK-47. I do not harm or threaten anyone and I take precautions with it and my other firearms to ensure that they are not stolen.

I am not insane, and I am not a nut. I am just a person like anyone else.

I do not want to violate the law, but if people who wish to ban "assault weapons" were to get their way, I would find myself in violation of the law. I would find myself, in fact, in violation of a gun law, and I can only presume that the consequences for such an infraction would be quite severe. I'd probably find myself in jail for some time if I were to violate such a law.

And yet, the fact remains that I don't harm or threaten anyone, and I am not an irresponsible gun owner.

It seems strange, or perhaps tyrannical, that one can act in an entirely virtuous manner, and yet go to jail. Surely, this should not be a legal possibility in a free nation.

 

[Remington]

So, lets for a moment, just a second or two, pretend you are standing in a hall filled with pipe smoke and scotch . For a start you would be breathing noxious gas, back then you would not have known you died from tobacco poisoning or cancer from passive smoking or asbestosis. Lets move on... A country grows strong, it defeats slavery and oppression from within.

It has fought brother against brother to bring to existence the US..United States. Ok. So, now, a new foe has emerged, brother against brother again. You are faced with your own executing your kids, you send your kids off to school, they may not come back, it grows more ordinary in the US, to shoot the young..

Whether that be at the hands of the stable or instable it it still remains the same. What choices do you all wish to make, does it once again become brother against brother, believe me, another few massacers and you are not far from that. The all for, the mediates or those all against. Myself, I just wish you would adopt our laws, the sane. Either you have a national vote of the people and not politicians, or you lose your place as the worlds first true democracy, and become the laughing stock of those that carry out mass murders everyday via car bombs and those that brainwash them and those unfortunates into doing so..

Yes, like the mother I personally think transferred her fears on to her son from an early age. Similarities? Yes, arm the teachers in school.... not long before you have bombs in cars going off in the playground. Then where will you be? Downtown Afghanistan.

You might not believe me, but I do see where you're coming from.

(I apologize in advance for rambling)

Thing is, while I believe people are largely good. There is no denying that there are some broken, sick, twisted individuals on this planet that want to do harm.

And sadly, unless we can find that fucked up part of people that drives them to do such acts & fix it, or detain those that "might" be a risk to us, these types aren't going away. And banning or heavily regulating anything, isn't going to stop them. They will find ways to do damage and the bans will just harm those that follow the law. Particularly when it comes to defense from these animals.

Honestly, I don't see these things stopping anytime soon. Regardless of whatever tools are used.

But, we can still do things to prevent it or lower the chances of it happening again. Like looking into better mental-health care & helping those that need it, requiring mental checks during a background when it comes to purchasing firearms, better firearms education, & upping security in "gun-free zones" so that we don't have any soft targets, or getting rid of the concept.

Out here in my neck of the desert, Washington state and even my violent hometown of Detroit,MI. we have courtesy police in schools and some "gun-free" zones that act as sentries. And no acts of extreme violence happened at these places. I know some oppose the whole bit of having police in schools, but it beats being entirely defenseless. And it's not like these acts are happening often in areas where people can defend themselves or have defense in police/secuirty, and the rare times that it does, it's usually stopped before it gets "too" out of hand. (If there is such a thing for a shooting)

Still, even that won't stop everything, of course. Crazy people are going to do crazy shit, no matter what. Best thing's we can do at the moment is hopefully minimize the amount of crazy & have adequate defense against it when it does happen.

 

[185248]

You might not believe me, but I do see where you're coming from.

(I apologize in advance for rambling)

Thing is, while I believe people are largely good. There is no denying that there are some broken, sick, twisted individuals on this planet that want to do harm.

There always will be, that's why they are here.

And sadly, unless we can find that fucked up part of people that drives them to do such acts & fix it, or detain those that "might" be a risk to us, these types aren't going away. And banning or heavily regulating anything, isn't going to stop them. They will find ways to do damage and the bans will just harm those that follow the law. Particularly when it comes to defense from these animals.
We find it by trying something different. Once when white guys first settled the US when exploring the largest danger was a bear. Now what is it?

Honestly, I don't see these things stopping anytime soon. Regardless of whatever tools are used.

But, we can still do things to prevent it or lower the chances of it happening again. Like looking into better mental-health care & helping those that need it, requiring mental checks during a background when it comes to purchasing firearms, better firearms education, & upping security in "gun-free zones" so that we don't have any soft targets, or getting rid of the concept.

To be honest, I think it is to late and things are going to have to run their course. Me heart is very sad at this thought.

Out here in my neck of the desert, Washington state and even my violent hometown of Detroit,MI. we have courtesy police in schools and some "gun-free" zones that act as sentries. And no acts of extreme violence happened at these places. I know some oppose the whole bit of having police in schools, but it beats being entirely defenseless. And it's not like these acts are happening often in areas where people can defend themselves or have defense in police/secuirty, and the rare times that it does, it's usually stopped before it gets "too" out of hand. (If there is such a thing for a shooting)

Why did it become so violent lad? Because of the 2nd......yeah I heard o' that shit, over and over. If you had a chance back then?

Still, even that won't stop everything, of course. Crazy people are going to do crazy shit, no matter what. Best thing's we can do at the moment is hopefully minimize the amount of crazy & have adequate defense against it when it does happen.

Crazy....Seems to be the pop word.

 

[deleted15807]

I kept proving him wrong too and....

I'm sure in 'your head' you've 'proven' something. The only thing you've proven to me is that after 116 posts in this thread alone and 33 in the other thread you have some kind of indecent obsession with guns and startlingly insensitivity to the harm they cause. And to sympathize with nut case Nancy Lanza is the stunning coup de grace to your sanity.

 

[185248]

Standing off on the sideline. looking at your homeless, your gun laws, your future. If you think you are going to to do any better than the romans did. Let me know. By the way, you have a few hours left yet Things start from the bottom up.

 

[185248]

Part of the beauty and the problem with many things in the US; State vice Federal laws & jurisdiction.

Yes, but sometimes the national interest wins. As in the civil war? I repaired a wall a little while ago at Indooroopilly, the day that was constructed in 1876, was close to the end of the civil war in the US I found a piece of string the brickie used to construct the wall. Mind you, this wall was built in Australia while you were fighting eachother. But when I touched that piece of string I had a million thoughts go through my mind.

The first is not kill eachother. Sorry, but that is what you are doing. Bugga.

 

[185248]

I'm gonna have to control the waterworks... buggerit

 

[554279]

Yes, but sometimes the national interest wins. As in the civil war? I repaired a wall a little while ago at Indooroopilly, the day that was constructed in 1876, was close to the end of the civil war in the US I found a piece of string the brickie used to construct the wall. Mind you, this wall was built in Australia while you were fighting eachother. But when I touched that piece of string I had a million thoughts go through my mind.

The first is not kill eachother. Sorry, but that is what you are doing. Bugga.

1876 we had stopped killing each other for a bit (we probably still were but not nearly the numbers we were between 1861 and 1865), as we had Native Americans to go back to killing (one of those other things that we needed the 2nd Amendment for - theft, er I mean manifest destiny)

 

[D_Snotty_Spooger]

Five years is the mandatory minimum. I don't think there are any immediate plans for revising UK gun laws, though if it were debated I imagine the public view would be in favour of a considerable increase in the sentence.

There is recognition in the UK of a few special cases around sporting guns (though increasingly these are stored within clubs rather than at the owners' homes) and there is a body of law around owning antique guns (which usually need to be deactivated and still stored in a secure environment).

Why the surprise? Outside of sporting use, the purpose of a gun is to kill someone.

Ive got 6 acres of garden and adjacent woodland, and my 1980's Webley Vulcan only makes the rabbits giggle. I'd like a proper weapon just for those, yum yum. I reserve the right to kill anyone who threatens my life in whatever way seems fitting at the time, which would probably be physical violence and sharp or blunt instruments - I doubt I'd actually shoot anyone - too noisy to have sustained fun with. Or I could scoop an assailants eyes out with a spoon.....shall we ban spoons?

 

[185248]

One of the shames we have found is that we took the original owners of the land....something that was pretty rare a few hundred thousand years ago. And they are pissed tooo because they let the origanal owners down.

So, If you had the chance to speak to the big guy. What would ya say?

Be very caefull but honest.
'r ...

 

[Remington]

It's not Gun control it's Assault Weapons Control. When you say gun control conservatives clutch their hunting rifles and Magnums while screaming "NOOOOOOooooooo!" Assault weapons control on the other hand is harder (if not impossible) to defend. Defend assault weapons to me. Make an arguement that justifies a civilian owning an AR or SMG.

Real SMGs & Assault rifles (as in the ones that are select-fire) are heavily regulated, as they are NFA items. Not to mention extremely rare & expensive.

And when it comes to these rifles, there are many "legit" uses for one of these rifles.

Unlike what a lot of people believe, when it comes to hunting they can be excellent & very versitile hunting rifles. Particularly with the fact that the AR platform can change caliber with an upper receiver or in some cases just a barrel change. Meaning you can have a varmint, deer, pig, etc rifle all in one.

And, unlike the popular opinion (on this site, at least) they are indeed used in home and ranch defense, as seen here & here. Just not to the same level as pistols & shotguns. They're used mainly because they are easier to shoot accurately and delivers more firepower than a handgun, are more precise and easier to control than a shotgun, and is easily configured with lights, lasers, sights, optics and other accessories to give you further advantages over any threats. Not to mention with the right ammo, they have a lower threat of over-penetration compared rounds like 00 Buck and 9mm.

Another "indirect"(and probably unpopular) reason revolve saround the fact that these rifles, particularly the AR platform, are wildly popular. Being used in hunting, defense, sports, hobbies, collecting, etc. And due to that popularity, the gun industry is a booming one. Especially with all these "Obama scares" happening so often. (Want proof? Look here) Banning or even heavily changing these rifles and or the accessories will hurt one of the few strong industries we have at the moment, and will probably result in lay-offs. Contributing to our already high unemployment rate.

And lastly, going through the whole process of putting more regulation on them again or outright banning them would be a waste of time & resources. Especially since crimes used buy these guns are very low (roughly 2% of gun crimes) and it won't stop crazy people from doing crazy things. Just hurt the law-abiding populace.

Those are just a few off the top of my head.

 

[185248]

1876 we had stopped killing each other for a bit (we probably still were but not nearly the numbers we were between 1861 and 1865), as we had Native Americans to go back to killing (one of those other things that we needed the 2nd Amendment for - theft, er I mean manifest destiny)

Probably explains the servants quarters close to our river that flooded so much.

 

[185248]

Real SMGs & Assault rifles (as in the ones that are select-fire) are heavily regulated, as they are NFA items. Not to mention extremely rare & expensive.

And when it comes to these rifles, there are many "legit" uses for one of these rifles.

Unlike what a lot of people believe, when it comes to hunting they can be excellent & very versitile hunting rifles. Particularly with the fact that the AR platform can change caliber with an upper receiver or in some cases just a barrel change. Meaning you can have a varmint, deer, pig, etc rifle all in one.

And, unlike the popular opinion (on this site, at least) they are indeed used in home and ranch defense, as seen here & here. Just not to the same level as pistols & shotguns. They're used mainly because they are easier to shoot accurately and delivers more firepower than a handgun, are more precise and easier to control than a shotgun, and is easily configured with lights, lasers, sights, optics and other accessories to give you further advantages over any threats. Not to mention with the right ammo, they have a lower threat of over-penetration compared rounds like 00 Buck and 9mm.

Another "indirect"(and probably unpopular) reason revolve saround the fact that these rifles, particularly the AR platform, are wildly popular. Being used in hunting, defense, sports, hobbies, collecting, etc. And due to that popularity, the gun industry is a booming one. Especially with all these "Obama scares" happening so often. (Want proof? Look here) Banning or even heavily changing these rifles and or the accessories will hurt one of the few strong industries we have at the moment, and will probably result in lay-offs. Contributing to our already high unemployment rate.

And lastly, going through the whole process of putting more regulation on them again or outright banning them would be a waste of time & resources. Especially since crimes used buy these guns are very low (roughly 2% of gun crimes) and it won't stop crazy people from doing crazy things. Just hurt the law-abiding populace.

Those are just a few off the top of my head

Well, speaking from a family with a lot of blackfella in their heritage. I would like to explore the word CUNT...I hear it is edible and tasty?

 

[Jason]

...I reserve the right to kill anyone who threatens my life in whatever way seems fitting at the time...

This is terrifying.

First there's a real issue around your ability - or anyone's ability - to judge what constitutes a threat to your life. The burglar who breaks into your home probably wants your valuables, not your life. Such a break in is likely to be frightening to you and it is easy for you to see a threat when none exists.

Then there's the issue of the nutcase who really does want your life, rather than your valuables. Clearly this is a difficult issue. Pointing a gun at such a person is almost certainly the worst thing to do. Correct action is to talk with them - and perhaps rather than learn to use a gun you should learn to talk to them.

I suggest you do not have the right to kill someone just because you find them threatening. This breaches the OT "thou shalt not kill" and the NT "love thy enemy", it breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the USA is a signatory, and just about every developed nation's legal code.

This thread has demonstrated to me that there are two fundamental problems which will be very hard to change but which the international community will require to be changed:
* The second amendment is illegitimate and sooner or later must go.
* The casual assertion by many Americans of a right to kill because of a perceived thread - for almost every individual American to be judge, jury and executioner - is a brutalising concept which has to be addressed.

 

[Remington]

Well, speaking from a family with a lot of blackfella in their heritage. I would like to explore the word CUNT...I hear it is edible and tasty?

The flavor sometimes differs a bit, but cunt is usually quite tasty.

If you haven't tried it, I heavily suggest you do.

 

[D_Snotty_Spooger]

This is terrifying.

First there's a real issue around your ability - or anyone's ability - to judge what constitutes a threat to your life. The burglar who breaks into your home probably wants your valuables, not your life. Such a break in is likely to be frightening to you and it is easy for you to see a threat when none exists.

Then there's the issue of the nutcase who really does want your life, rather than your valuables. Clearly this is a difficult issue. Pointing a gun at such a person is almost certainly the worst thing to do. Correct action is to talk with them - and perhaps rather than learn to use a gun you should learn to talk to them.

I suggest you do not have the right to kill someone just because you find them threatening. This breaches the OT "thou shalt not kill" and the NT "love thy enemy", it breaches the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the USA is a signatory, and just about every developed nation's legal code.

This thread has demonstrated to me that there are two fundamental problems which will be very hard to change but which the international community will require to be changed:
* The second amendment is illegitimate and sooner or later must go.
* The casual assertion by many Americans of a right to kill because of a perceived thread - for almost every individual American to be judge, jury and executioner - is a brutalising concept which has to be addressed.

and while youre eulogising so well, expecting reciprocation while you try to talk sense into the REAL bad ones, they laughed at you and raped your wife anyway. If a burglar (JUST a burglar) enters my home, the last thing i'm doing is talking to them. If they wake up in hospital it aint my fault. If I sense my life is truly in danger - I'll fight to the death. Simple.

 

[185248]

The flavor sometimes differs a bit, but cunt is usually quite tasty.

If you haven't tried it, I heavily suggest you do.

I do wish you guys would get the spelling right.....FFFFFFFTTTTTTTLLLLLavour and savour. You can bet she is watching. her rabbitt hunting father as well.

 

[185248]

she underestimates me. Get your act together woman.