Dune wrote: I guess we can mold any story into supporting our ideals.

what?

yes it is true and saying that he is not true is a disgrace to his memory

^exactly, thank you

edit: it is for what bluemonkey said

Other countries have set great examples. And it's still propaganda.

Dune wrote: Other countries have set great examples. And it's still propaganda.

lol like germany

Canada and England.

The most dangerous people in England with guns are their "security" forces.

Dune wrote: Canada and England. The most dangerous people in England with guns are their "security" forces.

what happened there

yeah but nobodys perfect everybody is gonna make mistakes

This is a fine example of an abused example.

This isn't an "oops" mistake. An innocent died, there is no excuse for the poor response of the security forces.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: You could take any example of someone getting killed and say "Oh well if they had a gun they could have..."

It's all propaganda.

Cedric wrote: I watched Bowling for Columbine last night.

Is that any good? Ive never seen it and have been told its not worth wasting money on to rent.

piranhakiller wrote: Cedric wrote: I watched Bowling for Columbine last night. Is that any good? Ive never seen it and have been told its not worth wasting money on to rent.

Its very good.

Keep an open mind when you watch it. Really it's not about gun control at all, its about what makes us Americans so insane and gun crazy.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: piranhakiller wrote: Cedric wrote: I watched Bowling for Columbine last night. Is that any good? Ive never seen it and have been told its not worth wasting money on to rent. Its very good. Keep an open mind when you watch it. Really it's not about gun control at all, its about what makes us Americans so insane and gun crazy.

Sweet thnx, Im goin to have to check that out

gun crazy my

http://photobucket.com/albums/b179/mpsniper/?action=view&current=94dcb027.gif"> hes crazy but he is german

this guy is crazy and hes arab

is crazy funny and hes canadian

but americans arnt as crazy as other countries

Mephistopheles wrote: Canada, no guns. Little gun violence and death. Perfect system. Well... except they have a machete problem there instead. If some can't get a gun that's not stopping them from being a problem to society. Personally I'd rather be shot than attacked by machete gangs.

yeah and another thing the things that are listed in a school weapons i mean any thing can be a weapon a pen,a pencil, a flag pole that is in the class room (you know the small ones on the wall), a globe

MP Sniper (regarding the London underground shooting) wrote: ah never heard of this incident

This, combined with the astoundingly goofy news story you posted, combine to spell out "I only read the news that I am shown, which has been pre-sanitized and pre-approved, and I do not think critically".

I mean - come on!  That story makes me want to laugh it is so stupid.  No thinking person can possibly take that seriously.

As to Bowling for Columbine - I thought it was boring at best, but intentionally misleading at worst.  Moore may not have had any outright falsehoods in that movie, but true to form he twists reality to serve his purpose.  That's just wrong, and that makes Moore a crook.

MP Sniper wrote: Mephistopheles wrote: Canada, no guns. Little gun violence and death. Perfect system. Well... except they have a machete problem there instead. If some can't get a gun that's not stopping them from being a problem to society. Personally I'd rather be shot than attacked by machete gangs. yeah and another thing the things that are listed in a school weapons i mean any thing can be a weapon a pen,a pencil, a flag pole that is in the class room (you know the small ones on the wall), a globe

Dont forget mulch. Back in grade school this crazy kid grabbed a large piece of mulch and stabbed another kid in the hand. It was pretty nasty. And for some unkown reason" I dont know if this happens in other cities" but like I think within 2 ys 5 kids got serverly injured by our soccer goals falling on them.

piranhakiller wrote: MP Sniper wrote: Mephistopheles wrote: Canada, no guns. Little gun violence and death. Perfect system. Well... except they have a machete problem there instead. If some can't get a gun that's not stopping them from being a problem to society. Personally I'd rather be shot than attacked by machete gangs. yeah and another thing the things that are listed in a school weapons i mean any thing can be a weapon a pen,a pencil, a flag pole that is in the class room (you know the small ones on the wall), a globe Dont forget mulch. Back in grade school this crazy kid grabbed a large piece of mulch and stabbed another kid in the hand. It was pretty nasty. And for some unkown reason" I dont know if this happens in other cities" but like I think within 2 ys 5 kids got serverly injured by our soccer goals falling on them.

ah man thats what i was forgetting MULCH man iam stupid sometimes

Clark Kent wrote: MP Sniper (regarding the London underground shooting) wrote: ah never heard of this incident This, combined with the astoundingly goofy news story you posted, combine to spell out "I only read the news that I am shown, which has been pre-sanitized and pre-approved, and I do not think critically". I mean - come on!  That story makes me want to laugh it is so stupid.  No thinking person can possibly take that seriously. As to Bowling for Columbine - I thought it was boring at best, but intentionally misleading at worst.  Moore may not have had any outright falsehoods in that movie, but true to form he twists reality to serve his purpose.  That's just wrong, and that makes Moore a crook.

Are you refering to the story where the "innocent" man got killed in london.

Tiger Stripe wrote: Clark Kent wrote: MP Sniper (regarding the London underground shooting) wrote: ah never heard of this incident This, combined with the astoundingly goofy news story you posted, combine to spell out "I only read the news that I am shown, which has been pre-sanitized and pre-approved, and I do not think critically". I mean - come on!  That story makes me want to laugh it is so stupid.  No thinking person can possibly take that seriously. As to Bowling for Columbine - I thought it was boring at best, but intentionally misleading at worst.  Moore may not have had any outright falsehoods in that movie, but true to form he twists reality to serve his purpose.  That's just wrong, and that makes Moore a crook. Are you refering to the london story where the guy got shot in the train station.

Yes.

Gatyr wrote: I must say. I am so over gun control now. I mean, come on. Its disgracing his memory if we cant carry AKs now. Rally Up!

o yeah ahmen brother, hallehulah

OK then why dos clark kent think that this an "astoundingly goofy news story" obvoisly she is not up to date on anything that is out side of her ignorant world, also if there is not gun in a country i prsonally think that the country is safer.

Mephistopheles wrote:

 Canada, no guns. Little gun violence and death. Perfect system.

Well... except they have a machete problem there instead. If some can't get a gun that's not stopping them from being a problem to society.
Personally I'd rather be shot than attacked by machete gangs that most foolish thing i have heard in a while ar you honistly saying that you would prefer people to carry guns other than knives

How many people can a knive kill at 1 time ONE, where as a fire arm can and most likey be able to kill 5 or 6 people in one atack. so i would out law guns.

Tiger Stripe wrote: OK then why dos clark kent think that this an "astoundingly goofy news story" obvoisly she is not up to date on anything that is out side of her ignorant world, also if there is not gun in a country i prsonally think that the country is safer. Mephistopheles wrote:  Canada, no guns. Little gun violence and death. Perfect system. Well... except they have a machete problem there instead. If some can't get a gun that's not stopping them from being a problem to society. Personally I'd rather be shot than attacked by machete gangsthe most foolish thing i have heard in a while ar you honistly saying that you would prefer people to carry guns other than knives How many people can a knive kill at 1 time ONE, where as a fire arm can and most likey be able to kill 5 or 6 people in one atack. so i would out law guns.

A car can kill 8 or more people at once. Let's outlaw them.

A gun isn't just a weapon. It becomes one when you use it as such.

Same for a car, a knife, etc. And most people who own a gun will never use it to kill somebody-the ones that do would've probably used something else if they had it.

DEFINITION OF WEAPON

an instrument or instrumentality used in fighting or hunting

A car is not ment to kill people.

A gun is created to kill things.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: A car is not ment to kill people. A gun is created to kill things.

tell that to professional marksmen and your ll probably get a fat lip

I know a gun is not just a weapon, it can be a usefull tool.

but i dont agr withwhat he sayed if somethink killd you that is a weapon. that is just bum chocolate 

MP Sniper wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: A car is not ment to kill people. A gun is created to kill things. tell that to professional marksmen and your ll probably get a fat lip

A marksman that kill things ???????

MP Sniper wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: A car is not ment to kill people. A gun is created to kill things. tell that to professional marksmen and your ll probably get a fat lip

No, No I wont.

A gun is created for the sole purpose of killing things. People do use it in different ways, but it is made to kill.

A car is made to transport.

Comparing a car to a gun is a non existant point.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: A car is not ment to kill people. A gun is created to kill things.

A gunmaker doesn't intend for innocent people to be killed by his weapon any more than the car maker does.

And if you look at gun owners, most them either have a weapon for defending their home or for sporting (hunting, target shooting, whatever). I tried to get into target shooting, but just couldn't really get the feel for it. It's alot of fun though if you try it.

The rest probably don't own guns legally anyway. So if they don't own them legally now, what makes you think they're going to suddenly start obeying the law? They won't. Instead they'll prey on people they know to be defenseless.

stratoaxe wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: A car is not ment to kill people. A gun is created to kill things. A gunmaker doesn't intend for innocent people to be killed by his weapon any more than the car maker does. And if you look at gun owners, most them either have a weapon for defending their home or for sporting (hunting, target shooting, whatever). I tried to get into target shooting, but just couldn't really get the feel for it. It's alot of fun though if you try it. The rest probably don't own guns legally anyway. So if they don't own them legally now, what makes you think they're going to suddenly start obeying the law? They won't. Instead they'll prey on people they know to be defenseless.

Which is one good reason I have guns. Of course I only bout them for target use but the day I need to use it Im ready and wont hesitate

"have a weapon for defending their home"

So the people who own this gun thy hav only one use for it to shoot someone.

Tiger Stripe for future reference please quote the whole paragraph when you qote me. That's what the button's for. Don't quote me out of context.

And yes, there are some people who own a gun simply to defend their family. What's wrong with that?

It's not against the law to defend yourself, but as I said guns are made for more than just that. In fact, most guns are made for hunting. Yes, that's killing, but hunting animals is a total different discussion.

*edit* Who decides how safe something is to the family members at home? Lots of babies die from being left on loose blankets in a crib. Little kids die from poisons in the house, that's the responsibility of the owner, not the government.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Not to mention you are more likley to kill a friend or family member when you keep a handgun in your home.

Yes true but not when u use the safest measures to store it as possible. I keep my guns and ammo on completly different floors hidden away and locked up. I dont let neone see them unless Im with them and I have my gun lock through the breech. Yes Ill admit it is very unsafe to keep guns in your house....But as long as u try to make things safer and arent a complete moron you have a better chance of nothing like that happening

piranhakiller wrote: Tae Kwon Do wrote: Not to mention you are more likley to kill a friend or family member when you keep a handgun in your home. Yes true but not when u use the safest measures to store it as possible. I keep my guns and ammo on completly different floors hidden away and locked up. I dont let neone see them unless Im with them and I have my gun lock through the breech. Yes Ill admit it is very unsafe to keep guns in your house....But as long as u try to make things safer and arent a complete moron you have a better chance of nothing like that happening

yeah some idiots should not have a gun let alone be near one

procarbinefreak wrote: so wait... if you keep your guns locked up and seperated from your ammo, how are you supposed to "defend" yourself when or if someone comes into your house?  are you gonna be running around your house grabbing your keys to the lock, ammo and a gun while the intruder just doesn't notice you.

Exactly but I would rather keep my family safe cause theres constantly little kids running around my house and if they went into my room and found them both their locked or not that would be dangerous. But I know wha ur saying...Right now I dont have to worry bout really protecting my wife n kids cause obviously I dont have ne but when I do Ill of course have the bat under the bed, and guns stil kept apart and hidden but still closer to my room...

Becuase if a mugger shoved a gun in your face, you could kindly ask him to hold on a moment why you pull out your own gun to scare him away.

And dont abuse statistics Cadet.

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Becuase if a mugger shoved a gun in your face, you could kindly ask him to hold on a moment why you pull out your own gun to scare him away. And dont abuse statistics Cadet.

if there was a way every gun that wasnt owned by the military or police could be off the street and basically gone from existance then i would support a gun ban but its impossable.

Um, yes it would. Muggers use suprise. You will not have the chance to pull out a gun.

MP Sniper wrote: Mephistopheles wrote: Canada, no guns. Little gun violence and death. Perfect system. Well... except they have a machete problem there instead. If some can't get a gun that's not stopping them from being a problem to society. Personally I'd rather be shot than attacked by machete gangs. yeah and another thing the things that are listed in a school weapons i mean any thing can be a weapon a pen,a pencil, a flag pole that is in the class room (you know the small ones on the wall), a globe

haha that makes em wanna just pick up the globe and smack one of my friends across the face with it

me? i think there should be civillian guns (i own guns)

Gatyr wrote: Mephistopheles wrote: So you know that every time somebody is mugged that it's been a surprise? Well, if it wasnt, then dont you think the person would have been better prepared to deal with it? I kind of doubt someone wakes up one morning and knows they will be mugged.

Actually I saw this one woman on the news that knows if shes going to have a bad day or good day by the way she brushes her teeth in the morning but thats beside the point. If I see some guy walking around starring at me or just that looks suspicious Ill stay away from him.. Common sense unless ur a complete moron....Of course thees the other degree to where their starting to get smarter and pop out of no where or no be so obvious but thats just life I guess

Tae Kwon Do wrote: Not to mention you are more likley to kill a friend or family member when you keep a handgun in your home.

Supreme court rulings on the second ammendment are so totally contradictory it makes me want to vomit. A sawed off shotgun is illegal because "It serves to militia purpose" however, machineguns are illegal, even though they certainly have a more of a military purpose than a sawed off shotgun.

I totally agree with certain types of gun laws, like requiring guns be sold with trigger locks/cable locks. It certainly encourages people to secure their guns. I also don't mind having to get a license to carry a concealed handgun, especially when one of the requirements is to obtain one is to take firearms instruction. Carrying a concealed handgun with no knowledge of how to use it just makes you dangerous. A basic pistol course not only teaches firearms safety, operation, but also marksmanship. I also don't mind having to pay for a license, as long as it just covers the cost of producing the license. But I think it's totally rediculous to use it as a way of generating revenue. I just paid $100 for my firearms license, which doesn't even allow me to carry. Just own firearms, and only non high capacity long guns at that. I can see having to get a permit to carry concealed, but one to keep a firearm in your own home? I mean, you already need to have a background check to purchase one. Making somebody pay that much to(IMO) excercise their constitutional rights is rediculous. There was certainly a large outcry from female college students when they upped the price of licenses from $25 to $100. They consequently dropped the price for a class D license(pepper spray/taser/stun gun) back down.

The assault weapon ban was a joke. It banned firearms based on cosmetic features. Mainly scary looking guns. It would have made more sense to ban hi-capacity weapons. Of course I don't agree with that either.

As for being required to keep all of your guns secured, it makes a whole lot of sense if you have kids in the house, or if you're away and are afraid of having them stolen. But when you're in the home and need a gun in a hurry, it's a real problem. We keep all of our modern firearms secured(I keep an antique firearm under my bed and a clip on my nightstand)and I've personally had to get one of them out in a hurry on several occasions. It's a royal pain in the butt and would be dangerous in a self defence situation. Fortunatly the last time this happened the dog managed to avoid being eaten by the bear long enough for me to come outside with high powered("assault") rifle. A few warning shots coupled with my father hitting it in the head with a log eventually made it back off.

WUNgUN wrote: Dune wrote: They shot that Brazillian guy because he was suspicious. Only to find out he was innocent and not actually acting very suspicious at all. Didn't he run when they told him to stop as they were searching for terrorists after an attack? Nothing wrong? That is actually an offence in this country too.

Initial reports from the media said he ran. However, it was later revealed that he wasn't and that it was a huge mistake on the part of the officers.

Either way the UK still has problems, gun ban or not. There are certainly countries with strict gun control that have less violent crime than the US(like all of Scandanavia)and countries with much more liberal guns laws that also have much lower crime rates(The Swiss REQUIRE gun ownership and training. Everybody has a SIG assault rifle in their house. A REAL assault rifle, meaning it is select fire). Either way, citing these countries as examples proves nothing. What works for one country may not work for another, just like what works in Bent Armpit Wyoming may not work in NYC and vice-versa.

That's why I say national gun control=bad(except for providing background checks and such)and local gun control=maybe not bad.

WUNgUN wrote: Dune wrote: Initial reports from the media said he ran. However, it was later revealed that he wasn't and that it was a huge mistake on the part of the officers. Mistakes, yes but it I just read all the current information on BBC.com and the story still seems cloudy. He ran, he didn't, he was running to catch his train, etc... In the end, I conclude that it has nothing to do with gun control. If British police had been hunting suspected terrorists with squirt-guns he would not have been killed, but I am sure eventually they would be!

I agree that this story has nothing to do with gun control. It was only brought up in the first place as a joke against their security forces.

rednekk98 wrote: Either way, citing these countries as examples proves nothing. What works for one country may not work for another, just like what works in Bent Armpit Wyoming may not work in NYC and vice-versa.

Smartest thing so far in this thread.

This whole thread is in essence a pointless debate over statistics. In all essence a gun isn't going to prevent your house from being robbed (they're probably going to wait until you're not home and steal the gun too) and there's a chance it'll save your life in a robbery.

The point is that it's not the government's place to tell me I can't own a gun. If you don't think I should own a gun that's your opinion and that's fine, but don't try to enforce your opinion on me.

There are lots of tools that cause lots of crimes in America. I can cause you lots of problems with an internet connection and the right hacking tools. I can stab you with a knife, forge documents with a pen, run over you with a car. You could die in alot of ways. But you can't tell me I can't own any of those things, neither can you tell me I can't own a gun. That's the way it is.

stratoaxe wrote: This whole thread is in essence a pointless debate over statistics. In all essence a gun isn't going to prevent your house from being robbed (they're probably going to wait until you're not home and steal the gun too) and there's a chance it'll save your life in a robbery. The point is that it's not the government's place to tell me I can't own a gun. If you don't think I should own a gun that's your opinion and that's fine, but don't try to enforce your opinion on me. There are lots of tools that cause lots of crimes in America. I can cause you lots of problems with an internet connection and the right hacking tools. I can stab you with a knife, forge documents with a pen, run over you with a car. You could die in alot of ways. But you can't tell me I can't own any of those things, neither can you tell me I can't own a gun. That's the way it is.

That is a rational, intelligent, and fairly persuasive argument for minimalist gun control.  Certainly the best so far in this thread.

BUT - by this logic, should I be allowed to keep a loaded Sherman tank on my lawn?  A rocket launcher in my car, or a small nuclear bomb in my basement?  Should I be able to bring a vest full of explosives to the movies?

Hoytshooter wrote: If every member of society owned a gun, robberies wouldnt happen while people were home. Sure some roberies would happen, but the numbers would decline, now say in DC, somebody wanted to kill somebody, they drive to my area and buy a gun, drive back shoot the person. If theres a will theres a way.

See I dont believe that fully at least. I would like to see that in a future effect like that one city that had eveyrone have a gun, I would like to c the effects say 10 yrs from now. Things change and I wonder if everyone having let alone not having guns would help b/c each side has its own pros and cons. And I just believe the goverment/ppl who are scared of guns shouldnt be allowed to say crap.

Oh and if you didn't figure it out, I support guns not gun control

Clark Kent wrote: BUT - by this logic, should I be allowed to keep a loaded Sherman tank on my lawn?  A rocket launcher in my car, or a small nuclear bomb in my basement?  Should I be able to bring a vest full of explosives to the movies?

A lengthy response If I might-

Our rights in this society are determined simply by the government's ability to control those rights. Which is the only rational way to keep peace in a society.

If officers carry assault rifles and handguns, they can control someone armed in the exact same way. They can't, however, control some nut in a Sherman tank, or a retard wit a rocket launcher. So we have laws based upon what we can control.

It's not some kind of conspiracy theory, it's simple common sense-a free society has nuts. So to control what those nuts can do, we have the freedoms up to the point that our police can keep the peace in our neighborhoods.

That's why there's a difference.

I'm impressed - two rational posts in a row in a gun control thread!!   :)

That is a very good argument.  Much better than the standard "bombs and guns are completely different" that always gets raised.

I'll have to think that one over.

But just to finetune some:

How does that apply to sawed-off shotguns and switchblades?  Presumably the police are better armed than either of those.  Should those be allowed?  And what about full auto guns?  If we armed our police with MP5s or M16s (like much of the world), should I be allowed to carry an AK?

^^^^^^  Always a classic.

:)

I read that too, in one of these threads somewhere.

But there is a country in europe some where that every citizen has to own a sks and take a safety course, look at that countries statistics, I havent seen them and I already know that they're crime rates are low. Wanna bet

Hoytshooter wrote: But there is a country in europe some where that every citizen has to own a sks and take a safety course, look

As for a need for "assault rifles" for defence, appearantly cops need them, so I guess there's some valid use in a defence situation. Also frangible 5.56mm ammunition has a lower risk of over-penetration that handgun rounds. That and the fact they are scary looking give it some self-defense purpose.

To whoever said police use fully automatic weapons, that is true in some cases, but most police forces are limited to semi-automatic fire to avoid colateral damage. It makes sence for a SWAT team going into some place with a lot of bad guys, but for a cop backing up another officer from greater range, they'd want the percision.

Meph - I think you are right.  That hardly ever crosses anybody's mind, unless they are in the Michigan Militia.

And for good reason.  Yes, I agree that it would be easier to mount an effective "insurgence" after an invasion if guns were plentiful.  Hard to argue against that.

But we have to consider the relative likelihood.  Assuming (your hypothetical) that we wanted to outlaw guns outright, this would presumably be due to perceived benefits in terms of reduced crime and accidents.  Would this gain be offset by the potential benefit from firearms during an invasion?  I would think not, simply due to the relative unlikelihood of an event occurring where mass weapon ownership would become a significant factor.

It would have to not just be war, or invasion - it would have to be an outright occupation, WWII style.  And while that is certainly not impossible, I find it sufficiently unlikely that I would not think it an appropriate basis for forming gun policy.  Moreover, it's not like having bunches of guns would make us immune to occupation - it would be only an incremental gain.

I could be wrong, of course, and it would really suck if I were.