# Guns - Yes or No?



## DOMS (Jan 13, 2007)

This is a question for Americans (If you're Canadian, I'm going to assume you'd like to have guns...well...because you have a large population of French people living in your country who you'd undoubtedly like to see dead).

Should guns be taken away from the people.  Think about this carefully before answering.  I'm not joking, _really_ think it through because it could come back to bite you in the ass.


----------



## Arnold (Jan 13, 2007)

only hunting rifles, all other guns should be banned.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 13, 2007)

I don't see any real benefit in banning guns. Criminals, by definition, wouldn't care about the law banning guns, so all we would really be doing is giving criminals the advantage


----------



## Arnold (Jan 13, 2007)

so you're going to use the "we need hand guns for protection" argument?


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 13, 2007)

no, not necessarily, although it does have some merit


----------



## Arnold (Jan 13, 2007)

not really.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 13, 2007)

Prince said:


> only hunting rifles, all other guns should be banned.



I find it interesting that you choose where the line is drawn.  But isn't that where so many important issues end up?  "It's only okay to the point that I say it's okay."

I can agree with a "yes" or a "no", but I find that, quite often, anyone in between is self-serving and often hypocritical.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 13, 2007)

Prince said:


> so you're going to use the "we need hand guns for protection" argument?



I think that arguement is sound and valid.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 13, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I think that arguement is sound and valid.



Keep your britches on, junior.  This is going to become quite fun.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 13, 2007)




----------



## The Monkey Man (Jan 13, 2007)

Prince said:


> so you're going to use the "we need hand guns for protection" argument?




It is statistically proven that just the "Fear" of people
brandishing firearms lowers assault type crimes in the
areas where those firearms are held.

Other types crime usually go up because jobless criminal losers need "Something" to do.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 13, 2007)

Prince said:


> not really.



I honestly don't see how you can make that statement


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jan 13, 2007)

If the police have assult type firearms...

"I" have assault type firearms.

And YES, they will be used for protection if needed (from whomever)


----------



## fletcher6490 (Jan 13, 2007)

I think that only white people should be allowed to own firearms.  White people who have less then 50% Italian in them of course.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Jan 13, 2007)

I'm friggin confused by the poll. Is "Yes" the banning of guns or "No?" I'm slow.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Jan 13, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> I think that only white people should be allowed to own firearms. *White people who have less then 50% Italian in them of course*.


 
WTF?!?!


----------



## NordicNacho (Jan 13, 2007)

The Monkey Man said:


> It is statistically proven that just the "Fear" of people
> brandishing firearms lowers assault type crimes in the
> areas where those firearms are held.
> 
> Other types crime usually go up because jobless criminal losers need "Something" to do.



Maybe we should just send millions of guns to Iraq instead of more soldiers and that would stop the violence.  They just need to be armed better.  Hopefully sectarian violence doesn't break out in Canada from those radical french canadians.  Better build a wall on that border too.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 13, 2007)

Goodfella9783 said:


> I'm friggin confused by the poll. Is "Yes" the banning of guns or "No?" I'm slow.


Yeah, I fucked it up, but I added descriptive words for clarification.  Live with it.


----------



## John69 (Jan 13, 2007)

I think its ok for people to have guns. aslong as it serves a purpose to having them IE: people who hunt, cops of course, and people to have them in their homes for protection. other than that jsut to have a gun to think its cool it should be banned


----------



## fletcher6490 (Jan 13, 2007)

Goodfella9783 said:


> WTF?!?!



Everybody knows the greasy Italians are ruthless criminals.  If I'm gonna take guns away from all the other troubled minorities, I have to take them away from the murder hungry Italians too.


----------



## viet_jon (Jan 13, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> I think that only white people should be allowed to own firearms.  White people who have less then 50% Italian in them of course.



haha LoL...


anyway, I think guns should be banned. It's too easy to kill someone with a gun.

Anyone can pull a split-second trigger and not fathom the consequences. Give the same guy a knife, does he have the heart to murder with it? Most likely not.


btw fletcher, I know where your BF is.


----------



## fletcher6490 (Jan 13, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> haha LoL...
> 
> 
> anyway, I think guns should be banned. It's too easy to kill someone with a gun.
> ...



Long time no see, where ya been.  Yeah, my body fat is probably a bit higher now...you don't have to rub it in.


----------



## viet_jon (Jan 13, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> Long time no see, where ya been.  Yeah, my body fat is probably a bit higher now...you don't have to rub it in.



WTf?? haha

I meant myk as in BF(boy-friend).


----------



## fletcher6490 (Jan 13, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> WTf?? haha
> 
> I meant myk as in BF(boy-friend).



Hahaha, just fuckin with ya.  I've been over at the other site a few times to check on everyone.  It's ok though, I have a new BF named fufu.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 13, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> anyway, I think guns should be banned. It's too easy to kill someone with a gun.
> Anyone can pull a split-second trigger and not fathom the consequences. Give the same guy a knife, does he have the heart to murder with it? Most likely not.



Guns do make it easier,however, if someone has decided to kill you, they'll do it with a gun, a knife, a claw hammer, or a rock for that matter. 
Also, at the risk of sounding redundant, banning them doesn't take them away from the criminal element, and it's the criminal element that is more likely to decide that they are going to kill you.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 13, 2007)

I also don't like the idea of any law being passed that takes something away from me 'for my own good'...


----------



## Mudge (Jan 13, 2007)

When you take things away from law abiding citizens only criminals and LE are left with them. That leaves the rest of us fending for ourselves until LE shows up, which is sometimes too late.


----------



## viet_jon (Jan 13, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> Hahaha, just fuckin with ya.  I've been over at the other site a few times to check on everyone.  It's ok though, I have a new BF named fufu.



ah, IC player.


----------



## section8 (Jan 13, 2007)

Mudge said:


> When you take things away from law abiding citizens only criminals and LE are left with them. That leaves the rest of us fending for ourselves until LE shows up, which is sometimes too late.



Agreed, one the average law abiding citizen has the right to own a  firearm stripped away then how will he defend him or herself and their family from an intruder that just so happens to be carrying a pistol?  What do you do swing a baseball bat at the bullet?  Also, once guns are taken away who is to say that the lawmakers will not have a field day and strip any other rights granted of the people?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 13, 2007)

section8 said:


> Agreed, one the average law abiding citizen has the right to own a  firearm stripped away then how will he defend him or herself and their family from an intruder that just so happens to be carrying a pistol?  What do you do swing a baseball bat at the bullet?  Also, once guns are taken away who is to say that the lawmakers will not have a field day and strip any other rights granted of the people?


 

You touched on an interesting point.  Quite often, the same people who want to remove gun ownership cry out for free speech.  It's funny how they fight vehemently to remove a right guaranteed by the constitution, but fight just as vehemently to keep another.  



I really doubt that they're thinking it through.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 13, 2007)

lucifuge said:


> I also don't like the idea of any law being passed that takes something away from me 'for my own good'...



Welcome to the world of political correctness.


----------



## juggernaut (Jan 13, 2007)

"The National Rifle Association says, 'Gun's don't kill people. People do'. But I think the gun helps." 
  - Eddie Izzard


----------



## section8 (Jan 13, 2007)

DOMS said:


> You touched on an interesting point.  Quite often, the same people who want to remove gun ownership cry out for free speech.  It's funny how they fight vehemently to remove a right guaranteed by the constitution, but fight just as vehemently to keep another.
> 
> 
> 
> I really doubt that they're thinking it through.



I mean if you think about it, the Founding Fathers got tired of an oppressive  government that was taxing them to death.  So what did they do?  They took up arms and rebelled. I think that if you take the right to own a firearm away from the citizens of a country then the lawmakers can run free and take away any or all of the citizens rights and there is nothing that the people can do about it. What can they do?  Vote them out?  Take away the power of the people to defend themselves and they could very easily appoint themselves to the office they hold for life. Not saying that would happen, but it has happened several time throughout history.  That is just MHO, but I have never been a fan of big government anyways.  I fell the government oversteps the bounds of it purpose a lot of the time.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 13, 2007)

juggernaut said:


> "The National Rifle Association says, 'Gun's don't kill people. People do'. But I think the gun helps."
> - Eddie Izzard



It's funny.  He's a Brit and here he's admonishing the use of guns.  If you think that we're losing freedoms here in the US, just look at the Brits.  If we're not careful, we'll end up like that.


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Jan 13, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> Everybody knows the greasy Italians are ruthless criminals. If I'm gonna take guns away from all the other troubled minorities, I have to take them away from the murder hungry Italians too.


 
Where are you coming from with this and what is your background? 
You're sounding pretty damn ignorant kid


----------



## fletcher6490 (Jan 13, 2007)

Goodfella9783 said:


> Where are you coming from with this and what is your background?
> You're sounding pretty damn ignorant kid



I'm just joking around, chill.  I'm Italian too.  The funny thing is I knew that my original statement would get a rise out of you.  

And to all the other minorities out there, I was just joking. Except for the blacks of course.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 14, 2007)

section8 said:


> I mean if you think about it, the Founding Fathers got tired of an oppressive  government that was taxing them to death.  So what did they do?  They took up arms and rebelled. I think that if you take the right to own a firearm away from the citizens of a country then the lawmakers can run free and take away any or all of the citizens rights and there is nothing that the people can do about it. What can they do?  Vote them out?  Take away the power of the people to defend themselves and they could very easily appoint themselves to the office they hold for life. Not saying that would happen, but it has happened several time throughout history.  That is just MHO, but I have never been a fan of big government anyways.  I fell the government oversteps the bounds of it purpose a lot of the time.




this is a valid point. the founding fathers chose the bill of rights carefully. the first steps to eliminating a republic hinge on the ability of the people to dissiminate information, ie freedom of speech. control what is said and people remain largely ignorant to the larger crimes of government.  and the second is the ability of its citizens to defend themselves. not from each other, though that is important, but from the government that governs over them. 

look at the step by step process hitler took to take over the german government. it becomes easier to see the importance of our bill of rights remaining intact.


----------



## Witchblade (Jan 14, 2007)

It's not the guns that REALLY is the problem. It's the american inborn violent nature. You think all the Canadians are gay pussies, but at least they're not violent.


----------



## juggernaut (Jan 14, 2007)

funny, but ballsy. I like that.





fletcher6490 said:


> I'm just joking around, chill.  I'm Italian too.  The funny thing is I knew that my original statement would get a rise out of you.
> 
> And to all the other minorities out there, I was just joking. Except for the blacks of course.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 14, 2007)

John69 said:


> cops of course,  other than that jsut to have a gun to think its cool it should be banned



Hmm, if we ban guns and that supposedly will solve crime, why do the cops need guns????Oh that's right, banning guns won't stop criminals will it?? So why take them from anyone else who needs them and has a constitutional right to have them?


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Jan 14, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> I'm just joking around, chill. I'm Italian too. The funny thing is I knew that my original statement would get a rise out of you.
> 
> And to all the other minorities out there, I was just joking. Except for the blacks of course.


 
Yeah I figured you might've been messing around I was  .


----------



## DOMS (Jan 14, 2007)

Witchblade said:


> It's not the guns that REALLY is the problem. It's the american inborn violent nature. You think all the Canadians are gay pussies, but at least they're not violent.



It beats being British, where they just can't wait to give up all of their rights.  They're so ready to have CCTVs shoved up their asses that they bend over and say "Don't bother with the lube."


----------



## DOMS (Jan 14, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Hmm, if we ban guns and that supposedly will solve crime, why do the cops need guns????Oh that's right, banning guns won't stop criminals will it?? So why take them from anyone else who needs them and has a constitutional right to have them?



Come on dg, you know that since the Brits and Aussies have outlawed guns that they no longer have any murders; or any crime at all.


----------



## The Monkey Man (Jan 14, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Maybe we should just send millions of guns to Iraq instead of more soldiers and that would stop the violence.  They just need to be armed better.  Hopefully sectarian violence doesn't break out in Canada from those radical french canadians.  Better build a wall on that border too.



If you sent guns to those Mayonaise slurping French Canucks,
they would undoubtedly assume it was some new expresso-style
instant tea water filler heater handle and promptly shoot themselves



"I like to look at a Russian or a German or an Italian--I even like to          look at a Frenchman if I ever have the luck to catch him engaged in anything          that ain't delicate."
~Samuel Clemens~


----------



## Jamandell (d69) (Jan 14, 2007)

I'm completely against use of guns, and I'm glad here in the UK all handguns are banned.
You keep hearing about all these kids killed in schools, and the only way to stop it in my opinion is to take away the guns from the public.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 14, 2007)

Jamandell (d69) said:


> I'm completely against use of guns, and I'm glad here in the UK all handguns are banned.
> You keep hearing about all these kids killed in schools, and the only way to stop it in my opinion is to take away the guns from the public.



So, you don't have any murders in the UK, right?


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 14, 2007)

remember how the brady bill did absolutely nothing against crime in its ten year trial period? and then how not a peep was made when it quietly expired?


----------



## Goodfella9783 (Jan 14, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> anyway, I think guns should be banned. It's too easy to kill someone with a gun.
> 
> Anyone can pull a split-second trigger and not fathom the consequences. Give the same guy a knife, does he have the heart to murder with it? Most likely not.


 
I agree with this.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 14, 2007)

Between my father brother and myself, we own over 30 guns. All of us have been collecting rifles shotguns, revolvers pistols, and the occasional assault rifle.

I'll make it simple.

Anybody who tries to take our guns will die.


----------



## bio-chem (Jan 14, 2007)

gun control is a falacy here in the united states.


----------



## viet_jon (Jan 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> So, you don't have any murders in the UK, right?



You can't exactly expect murders to dissipate over night after banning guns. MY guess would be that in due time, less total guns, should equal less total murders.


Where do criminals get their guns from anyhow? let's see.............they steal them from legal gun owners?!? Now if those legal gun owners didn't have guns, criminals could only rely on imported guns, which would drive the number of criminal guns down substantially.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 14, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> You can't exactly expect murders to dissipate over night after banning guns. MY guess would be that in due time, less total guns, should equal less total murders.
> 
> 
> Where do criminals get their guns from anyhow? let's see.............they steal them from legal gun owners?!? Now if those legal gun owners didn't have guns, criminals could only rely on imported guns, which would drive the number of criminal guns down substantially.



Maybe in the UK, this is how they get their guns, but in the US, the illegal guns come, in large part, from Mexico.


----------



## viet_jon (Jan 14, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Maybe in the UK, this is how they get their guns, but in the US, the illegal guns come, in large part, from Mexico.





I doubt there are numbers to back up these statements. We can only speculate the numbers of stolen guns vs. imported guns. But whatever the percentage may be, any chink in the number of total guns, has to eventually lessen the crime rate.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 14, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> I doubt there are numbers to back up these statements. We can only speculate the numbers of stolen guns vs. imported guns. But whatever the percentage may be, any chink in the number of total guns, has to eventually lessen the crime rate.



Do you have any idea what number of guns are in the US already?? Probably hundreds of millions. There will be plenty to go around for plenty of lifetimes without any new ones. So a gun ban will do no good. And try gun confiscation and you will see the worst revolt you have ever seen. The revolutionary war will look like childs play.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 14, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> Where do criminals get their guns from anyhow? let's see.............they steal them from legal gun owners?!?



Where do people get cocaine, they aren't all stealing from people legal sources. Do you not think they can get guns into the US illegally too? Nahh, that never happens.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 14, 2007)

dg806 said:


> And try gun confiscation and you will see the worst revolt you have ever seen. The revolutionary war will look like childs play.



I doubt the northern states would protest that much, maybe in the south and in the east (Virginia etc) but in California and the like - I seriously, seriously doubt many would take up arms and hit the streets. This isn't 1842 anymore, and I really think only the southern states would be that hardcore about it to where it might be a possibility.


----------



## viet_jon (Jan 14, 2007)

dg806 said:


> Do you have any idea what number of guns are in the US already?? Probably hundreds of millions. There will be plenty to go around for plenty of lifetimes without any new ones. So a gun ban will do no good. And try gun confiscation and you will see the worst revolt you have ever seen. The revolutionary war will look like childs play.




I'm not saying I have the solution. But America is not heading in the right direction to eradicate gun related crime by producing more and more guns.

I don't believe guns should be produced period. But this fucked up world we live in, that's unrealistic ideology.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 14, 2007)

Mudge said:


> I doubt the northern states would protest that much, maybe in the south and in the east (Virginia etc) but in California and the like - I seriously, seriously doubt many would take up arms and hit the streets. This isn't 1842 anymore, and I really think only the southern states would be that hardcore about it to where it might be a possibility.



What about Texas, arizona and such. They are bigger for gun rights than the south IMO.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 14, 2007)

To me Texas is about as south as you can get, look at the map brother. 

Arizona yeah, they allow concealed weapons permits don't they? We don't have that in CA unless I believe you are some kind of LE.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 14, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> I'm not saying I have the solution. But America is not heading in the right direction to eradicate gun related crime by producing more and more guns.
> 
> I don't believe guns should be produced period. But this fucked up world we live in, that's unrealistic ideology.



They won't be either until they start doing something with the criminals that commit these acts. There is no penalties in place to deter it. Start the hanging at the square at high noon again and you will see a decrease.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 14, 2007)

By south, I was talking SE. I think most states now have concealed carry. NC has had it for sometime now. Alot of states are trying to get reciprocity for carry. I can carry in any state now with proper id.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 14, 2007)

Also, the midwest and western states are big hunting areas.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 14, 2007)

Sadly murder will always exist, guns or no guns. You don't see a lot of people getting lanced, or shot with an arrow, but people will always find a way to get rid of someone they don't like enough if they have the mental instability to get the job done.

As for hunting, as long as you are eating your kill I see nothing wrong with it. Trophy hunters on the other hand, fuck 'em.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 14, 2007)

dg806 said:


> They won't be either until they start doing something with the criminals that commit these acts. There is no penalties in place to deter it. Start the hanging at the square at high noon again and you will see a decrease.



 

Hell Yes! Either you act right or you die. You kill someone, you die! You hurt a child, you die. You sexually abuse anyone, you die. 

We should also start hanging politicians. You take advantage of your political office for personal gains, you die!


----------



## viet_jon (Jan 14, 2007)

Mudge said:


> Sadly murder will always exist, guns or no guns. You don't see a lot of people getting lanced, or shot with an arrow, but people will always find a way to get rid of someone they don't like enough if they have the mental instability to get the job done.




I don't think most murders are premeditated like that. My guess is that most murders happen in a burst of uncontrolled anger.

Say you come home to find a dude in bed with your wife. Your initial anger would justify the use of your gun to shoot him in the head. But if you had no gun, could the average guy really beat someone to death? After a two minute beating, your senses might come to you, and you might think of the consequences. But once you pull that split second trigger, it's too late.

I just think guns makes it too easy to kill.




			
				mudge said:
			
		

> As for hunting, as long as you are eating your kill I see nothing wrong with it. Trophy hunters on the other hand, fuck 'em.



I agree 100%

Trophy hunting is the worst form of animal cruelty.


----------



## section8 (Jan 14, 2007)

bio-chem said:


> remember how the brady bill did absolutely nothing against crime in its ten year trial period? and then how not a peep was made when it quietly expired?



This to me bring up another good point, why make more legislation concerning gun control?  WE NEED TO ENFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE.


----------



## section8 (Jan 14, 2007)

Jamandell (d69) said:


> I'm completely against use of guns, and I'm glad here in the UK all handguns are banned.
> You keep hearing about all these kids killed in schools, and the only way to stop it in my opinion is to take away the guns from the public.



If you take away guns form the private citizen, does it take away guns from criminals?  No, criminal are just that, criminals, they do not abide by the law.  If a kid wants to blow away his class mates, there are other ways of doing that and if they want a pistol bad enough, do you think a criminal is going to have enough morals to not sell one to a teenager?  I mean c'mon what is next, do we ban fertilizer and keep the citizens from buying that so they can for example, fertilize their gardens and yards, b/c some teenager can learn how to make a bomb using the stuff on the internet?  Which brings up another point, we might as well ban the internet too.


----------



## Bakerboy (Jan 14, 2007)

I think hand guns should be restricked to hot women and children only. I'm okay with rifles for hunters who are going to feed their families with the meat, and are respectful, not wasteful- but not for crazy people like me.  Sadly, I can't be trusted.


----------



## Mudge (Jan 14, 2007)

viet_jon said:


> Say you come home to find a dude in bed with your wife. Your initial anger would justify the use of your gun to shoot him in the head. But if you had no gun, could the average guy really beat someone to death? After a two minute beating, your senses might come to you, and you might think of the consequences. But once you pull that split second trigger, it's too late.



This is unfortunate, but should everyone else be punished because a few in the gene pool are fucktards?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 14, 2007)

Mudge said:


> This is unfortunate, but should everyone else be punished because a few in the gene pool are fucktards?



This is how life works now: the lowest common denominator.  Put another way: stupid mother fuckers ruin if for everyone else.


----------



## ABCs (Jan 14, 2007)

In the states where gun posession in public is LEGAL, there is an almost non existant crime rate. After all, if your a theif, your going to think twice about robbing some innocent citizen if they are carrying the same weapon as you. Besides, taking our guns away gives more power to the government, the same exact thing that liberal SAY they are against... go figure, their the ones that want to take the guns away from all of the LAW abiding, tax paying citizens. Please, someone exaplain to me how that works?


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 14, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Hell Yes! Either you act right or you die. You kill someone, you die! You hurt a child, you die. You sexually abuse anyone, you die.
> 
> We should also start hanging politicians. You take advantage of your political office for personal gains, you die!



Damn right KelJu, I couldn't agree more with this statement


----------



## fletcher6490 (Jan 14, 2007)

Goodfella9783 said:


> Yeah I figured you might've been messing around I was  .



I'm still just fucking around.  About the whole black thing.  

In my opinion it's a lose lose situation.  If you take away guns the murder rate might drop(who's to say that people won't start stabbing each other) but the fact of the matter is criminals won't be scared to rob someone, or someones house, for the simple fact that they know that they won't be "packin".  

Unfortunately we will never be able to keep firearms out of the hands of people who try to misuse them.  It's like the illegal immigrant problem; we already let them in and it's impossible to get rid of them.  No matter how hard we try, they will always be here.  

What I would like to know is if the times were similar to now back when the constitution was written, would the second amendment allow us to carry firearms?  Would our forefathers put that statement in the second amendment knowing that shit has really hit the fan now a days.  I know that they were completely different times, I mean completely different, but seriously.  It kinda makes you think.


----------



## lucifuge (Jan 14, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> What I would like to know is if the times were similar to now back when the constitution was written, would the second amendment allow us to carry firearms?  Would our forefathers put that statement in the second amendment knowing that shit has really hit the fan now a days.  I know that they were completely different times, I mean completely different, but seriously.  It kinda makes you think.



I think they would have still made that ammendment. This country was actually dedicated to freedom when the bill of rights was written. Now, there are many laws that blatantly mock 'freedom', many of which would fall under the idea of 'protecting' people. Gun control, seat belt laws, helmet laws... just to name a few.
In all honesty, I think that if the founding fathers would have had any idea how much their words, deeds, and intentions would be twisted, they probably would have just said screw it and kept on bowing to England.


----------



## Souped_up (Jan 14, 2007)

No don't ban guns.  Im still bitter about the "war on drugs".   If we want to be able to protect ourselves we should be allowed to you damn commies!


----------



## clemson357 (Jan 24, 2007)

I read this thread and I was pleasantly surprised by how many people got the answer right.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2007)

Ah, I'd forgotten about this thread.

I have a follow up question for those that voted to ban guns:  Do you trust the government (You know, the one with Bush in it) 100%?

Yes or no?


----------



## fufu (Jan 24, 2007)

fletcher6490 said:


> Hahaha, just fuckin with ya.  I've been over at the other site a few times to check on everyone.  It's ok though, I have a new BF named fufu.





How did I miss this? It must have been during my three day vacation from IM, lawl.


----------



## fufu (Jan 24, 2007)

I think that guns should be allowed to be owned by citizens. It's a little thing called freedom. However, if people choose to use their freedom in a morally and ethically wrong way, then they should be taken away. That is where it gets tricky.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2007)

fufu said:


> I think that guns should be allowed to be owned by citizens. It's a little thing called freedom. However, if people choose to use their freedom in a morally and ethically wrong way, then they should be taken away. That is where it gets tricky.



How is that tricky?  It's called committing a crime.  The *individual *gets locked away and loses the right to own a gun.  

You punish the individual, not the people.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 24, 2007)

> If you're Canadian, I'm going to assume you'd like to have guns...well...because you have a large population of French people living in your country who you'd undoubtedly like to see dead.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2007)

Jodi said:


>



I jest!  I jest! 

Veuillez ne pas me tuer.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 24, 2007)

When it comes down to it, the answer is no, IMO.  Someone else will always have a gun, whether it be in the US or another country.

Plus, for the poe-poe, guns allow a fat, out-of-shape, piece of shit take out someone in much better shape with a knife easily.  If I had kids and some lunatic held them up with a knife, I like the comfort in knowing that pretty much anyone could take them out with a gun.

As for assault rifles or fully-automatic weapons, if no other person in the world had them, I don't see the need for them.  But, at the end of the day, someone will have them, legally or illegally, so it is something I just don't really give a shit about.


----------



## ALBOB (Jan 24, 2007)

Every gun in the world should be destroyed. 

















 


Damn, I almost said it with a straight face.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 24, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> Every gun in the world should be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not seeing a need for something isn't the same as not allowing it.  I don't see the need for abortion but don't see the need for eliminating the ability to get one.


----------



## ALBOB (Jan 24, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> Not seeing a need for something isn't the same as not allowing it.  I don't see the need for abortion but don't see the need for eliminating the ability to get one.




Yeah, yeah, yeah, blah, blah, blah.............This discussion has been done so damn many times I can't give it any serious thought anymore.  I know where I stand on the matter and am not changing my position any time soon.  Those on the other side of the fence aren't going to change their opinions on the matter either.  So if people want to debate it fine, let them have at it.  I'm just gonna sit here and make jokes.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Jan 24, 2007)

Jesus Christ...I give you a lay-up with the abortion thing and you don't even take the shot...You are slipping.


----------



## fufu (Jan 24, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> Jesus Christ...I give you a lay-up with the abortion thing and you don't even take the shot...You are slipping.



I think Jesus Christ is against abortion, I wouldn't really bother bringing up that subject.


----------



## ALBOB (Jan 24, 2007)

Dale Mabry said:


> Jesus Christ...I give you a lay-up with the abortion thing and you don't even take the shot...You are slipping.



Not really slipping in the observation department, just slipping in the "give a shit" department.  Some of these things have been argued to death and nobody ever changes their original position.  So why waste time and energy?  I'm just gonna sit back and make fun of people.  Speaking of that, you're ugly.


----------



## Jodi (Jan 24, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I jest!  I jest!
> 
> Veuillez ne pas me tuer.


LOL, I can't speak french, but I am candian french.

2 for 2   (blonde, french canadian)


----------



## tucker01 (Jan 24, 2007)

Jodi said:


> LOL, I can't speak french, but I am *Canadian* french.
> 
> 2 for 2   (blonde, french *C*anadian)



Corrected for you


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2007)

Jodi said:


> LOL, I can't speak french, but I am candian french.
> 
> *3* for *3*  (blonde, french, canadian)



Fixed.


----------



## DOMS (Jan 24, 2007)

IainDaniel said:


> Corrected for you


Not quite...


----------



## ALBOB (Jan 24, 2007)

Jodi said:


> (blonde, french canadian)



Ooooo baby, how YOU doin'?


----------



## Jodi (Jan 24, 2007)

Great, pick on my grammar to while you're at it.    Thanks guys!


----------



## Jodi (Jan 24, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> Ooooo baby, how YOU doin'?


Alboobie!  Nice to see you around again


----------



## ALBOB (Jan 24, 2007)

Nice to see the place getting back to abnormal.  Now if you could just get rid of that annoying IanDianial (Note spelling ) creep.


----------



## ZECH (Jan 24, 2007)

Jodi said:


> LOL, I can't speak french, but I am candian french.
> 
> 2 for 2   (blonde, french canadian)



And she sits on the newspaper to read it


----------



## Jodi (Jan 24, 2007)

dg806 said:


> And she sits on the newspaper to read it


----------



## ZECH (Jan 24, 2007)

Jodi said:


>



I couldn't resist. Hey, it was your joke blondie


----------



## Jodi (Jan 24, 2007)

dg806 said:


> I couldn't resist. Hey, it was your joke blondie


Yeah a deaf blonde joke


----------



## tucker01 (Jan 24, 2007)

What you can't hear?


----------



## Squaggleboggin (Jan 24, 2007)

I notice you have in the poll, 'citizens.' Is this another subtle way in which you can argue against illegal aliens? Haha.

Unless all guns could be magically taken away except from those who should have them (police and people who depend on them for hunting, etc.), it probably wouldn't be worth it.

Many people may defend free speech and argue against guns, but just because both are in the Constitution doesn't mean both are just as important or of the same use today.


----------



## Dero (Jan 24, 2007)

Jodi said:


>



I had no problems understand this poll, could it be that I am French Canadian and that it was all twisted  ...???

No guns, make them illegal!!!

This is from somebody (moi) that HAS to have his gun license for work.
Ever since the Lee "accidental shooting"(in the movie "The Crow") anybody in the entertainment bizz that handles a "replica" or a "starter pistol " or a "none funtional firearm" (sealed barell,trigger lock...) needs to prove a firearm SAFE before handing it  over to a person (actor  who does not have a license  )that will be in a public area(stage) and that person(the card holder) cannot lose from his site that firearm, until it's in his position again. Checking AGAIN to make sure that the fire arm is SAFE, put away in a lockable gun case separate from any blanks and lock up in a cabinet, closet. 

I am accountable. 

But yes, say "NO" to guns!!!


----------



## BigDyl (Jan 24, 2007)

I'm not sure how the laws are written, but felons who commited assualt or worse shouldn't be able to carry one.


Other than that, I want a glock.


----------



## BoneCrusher (Jan 24, 2007)

BigDyl said:


> I'm not sure how the laws are written, but felons who commited assualt or worse shouldn't be able to carry one.
> 
> 
> Other than that, I want a glock.


Any felony conviction costs a person his right to bare arms and to vote.  There are ways around it, but it aint easy.  I knew a guy in Nebraska that had a safe in his office.  Someone had broken in and tried to open it ... just beat piss outta the thing.  So my friend calls the cops to get the report for his insurance.  They come in, do the paper work and leave.  10 minutes later he gets another knock on the door ... and arrested.  He was a convicted felon who had a few guns in his office.

But yeah ... that entire background check they do for a hand gun permit is to look for felonies.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 25, 2007)

for about every 12.5 homicides w/gun their is 1 accidental death due to the use of a firearm most of which are children under 14. think about that stat fora second...
but im sure the statistics of lives saved by protecting ureself w/a gun greatly outweigh all those lives lost each year due to accidental reasons... PLUS its my RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN to own a gun!! how dare these people tell me to get rid of my prized collection of guns!!! these guns mean alot to me and i mean afterall when amreica was established HUNDREDS of years ago it was a persons right as an AMERICAN CITIZEN to own a firearm!!! lol watll these crazy bastards think of taking away next???? my fuking machete collection?!?!!!

lol... fking ignorant fools


----------



## DOMS (Jan 25, 2007)

If only grammar meant something to you.

Cars kill more people that guns do by a magnitude.  So we should ban them too, correct?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 25, 2007)

Oh, and don't forget to sign the petition to ban dihydrogen monoxide while you're at it.

That stuff kills hundreds of people every year.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 25, 2007)

word doms ure right i didnt kno that about cars we should ban them too i mean we dont need cars they are just an accesory in our society we could go back to horse an buggy. guns on the other hand are a priority for all we couldnt function as a nation without them in the hands of everyday americans...
lol cmon man r u seriouse?


----------



## DOMS (Jan 25, 2007)

JOHNYORK said:


> word doms ure right i didnt kno that about cars we should ban them too i mean we dont need cars they are just an accesory in our society we could go back to horse an buggy. guns on the other hand are a priority for all we couldnt function as a nation without them in the hands of everyday americans...
> lol cmon man r u seriouse?



Do you just not care about how your posts look or is the problem too little oxygen?

It's negligence that results in the accidental deathsby guns of minors each year.  The same can be said about automobiles.  So, should we ban them too because of a minority of idiots?

There are plenty of things in America that aren't completely necessary, so why don't we ban them?

Approximately 40,000 people die from ingesting aspirin each year, should we ban that too?  

Simply looking at the statistics isn't enough.  You have to look at all the statistics.  How many lives are saved each year by guns?


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 25, 2007)

word doms i agree ure right again the amount of lives saved each year by hero next door neighbor bobby jones shootin out them damn intruders w/his trustee 44 greatly outweighs the accidental deaths i mean shit i read bout that shit goin down all the time here in one of the most crime filled states in america ny!!! and as soon as guns get banned im def. voting for the next politician who wants to ban cars and aspirin.

ps cmon man if ure gonna give stats please dont make shit up 40,000 deaths a year too aspirin??lol


----------



## clemson357 (Jan 25, 2007)

JOHNYORK said:


> word doms ure right i didnt kno that about cars we should ban them too i mean we dont need cars they are just an accesory in our society we could go back to horse an buggy. guns on the other hand are a priority for all we couldnt function as a nation without them in the hands of everyday americans...
> lol cmon man r u seriouse?




You are proof that illiterate people shouldn't be allowed to vote.


----------



## clemson357 (Jan 25, 2007)

By the way, your sarcastic argument that cars are necessary and guns are not is categorically false.  Guns are used 2.5 millions each year by law abiding citizens to protect their lives and the lives of their family.  Thats a necessity, as well as a basic human right, if you ask me.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 25, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> Guns are used 2.5 millions each year by law abiding citizens to protect their lives and the lives of their family.



-TRUE STORY


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 25, 2007)

clemson357 said:


> By the way, your sarcastic argument that cars are necessary and guns are not is categorically false.



word i agree it def. is categorically false


----------



## DOMS (Jan 25, 2007)

JOHNYORK said:


> word doms i agree ure right again the amount of lives saved each year by hero next door neighbor bobby jones shootin out them damn intruders w/his trustee 44 greatly outweighs the accidental deaths i mean shit i read bout that shit goin down all the time here in one of the most crime filled states in america ny!!! and as soon as guns get banned im def. voting for the next politician who wants to ban cars and aspirin.
> 
> ps cmon man if ure gonna give stats please dont make shit up 40,000 deaths a year too aspirin??lol



I won't talk to you again until you clean up your posts.


----------



## KelJu (Jan 25, 2007)

DOMS said:


> I won't talk to you again until you clean up your posts.


----------



## JOHNYORK (Jan 25, 2007)




----------



## HaRdWoRkInG (Jan 25, 2007)

Taking away guns would result in a situation similar to taking away booze during the prohibition.


----------



## Will Brink (Feb 6, 2007)

Prince said:


> only hunting rifles, all other guns should be banned.



A rather ignorant comment. What guns are intended for is irrelevant, bit it hunting ot other. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what???s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.

A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.

The positive use of a gun would be to prevent a crime or save a life, such as the 120lb women who shoots the 210 rapist, the 80 year old man who prevents the burglar from coming into his home and doing him harm, or the shop owner who protects his life work from looters after a storm, and so on

In that context, the ONLY relevant question is, what is the ratio of good to bad uses of guns? Between 700,000 (FBI???s data) and 2.5 million (Klecks data) times per year a gun is used in the in the US. in the positive sense Guns are used approximately 5 times more often to prevent a crime/save a life then they are to commit a crime.

So why not just remove all guns from the hands of citizens to reduce crime (which is not even possible nor constitutional but mentioned here for the sake of argument) which should lower crime?  On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it???s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead. Hitler knew that all too well when he said:

???History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." --- Adolf Hitler (1889-1945), April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitlers Tischegesprache Im Fuhrerhauptquartier 1941-1942.


Thus, why the Second Amend exists and reveals a universal truth: the right to self defense - be it from criminals  or a tyrannical government - is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT no government can grant or take away. 

Guns are a necessary evil but necessary to a democracy  and that fact was recognized by men far smarter then we are. For example;

"A FREE people ought...to be armed..." -George Washington, speech of January 7, 1790 in Boston Independent Chronicle, January 14, 1790.

And:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws
make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides,
for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." - Thomas Jefferson  quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment - (1764).

And a more recent opinion:

"That rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or laborer's cottage is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there." --George Orwell


This is no less true today then it was then, perhaps even more relevant today then it was then some have argued.


Use your logical mind, do some research, leave what you think you know of the topic behind, and you will be shocked at what you find.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 6, 2007)

Rob just got owned by Will Brink.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 6, 2007)

WillBrink said:


> A rather ignorant comment. What guns are intended for is irrelevant, bit it hunting ot other. Cars are intended for driving to work, yet kill 40,000 per year. Pools and bikes-designed for biking and swimming respectively-kill more kids per year then guns. What guns are USED for is what???s relevant. There are negative and positive uses for guns.
> 
> A negative use of a gun is when a person commits a crime using a gun to commit it. That person is what is known as a criminal and all legal and or physical punishment should be applied to said person.
> 
> ...




Holy Shit!   I just printed that out.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

WillBrink said:


> On a much larger historical picture, history has shown us over and over and over what happens to a population that is disarmed by it???s own government: they become subjects, slaves, or dead.



Look at the Brits.  Practically every month, one right or another is infringed.  There's one camera for every 5 people living in the UK.  They were trying to pass (it may have already passed) a law that would force all cars to have GPS devices built into them so that they can be tracked at any time.

Oh, and nice post.


----------



## NeilPearson (Feb 6, 2007)

DOMS said:


> This is a question for Americans (If you're Canadian, I'm going to assume you'd like to have guns...well...because you have a large population of French people living in your country who you'd undoubtedly like to see dead).



As a Canadian... I have never had the desire to have a gun.  Why would you assume we would want them?  I have never understood the American obsession with wanting to have a gun.  It seems pretty pointless to me.

Don't get me wrong.  I am not anti-gun.  I just don't care either way.  I don't have a use for one.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> As a Canadian... I have never had the desire to have a gun.  Why would you assume we would want them?



Sorry, I had also assumed that you had a sense of humor.  My apologies.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 6, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Oh, and nice post.



No kidding. I hope you pop into open chat more often Will. Yo usound like a smart and well educated person.


----------



## americanwit (Feb 6, 2007)

I think all guns should be banned.  I know I'm an idealist, and it's not that easy, but guns should be banned.


----------



## ZECH (Feb 6, 2007)

I would like to see some of you that are for gun control, take the time and explain to us the reasons you are for it, much like Will did in his post against it. Not just "I think guns should be banned". Put some thought into and give some facts supporting your position.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 6, 2007)

dg806 said:


> I would like to see some of you that are for gun control, take the time and explain to us the reasons you are for it, much like Will did in his post against it. Not just "I think guns should be banned". Put some thought into and give some facts supporting your position.



It can't be done, because it is a dumb opinion. If you think it out using real data, you will come to the logical conclusion to not restrict gun ownership in any way.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 6, 2007)

americanwit said:


> I think all guns should be banned.  I know I'm an idealist, and it's not that easy, but guns should be banned.



Thank you for your dumb non-thought out answer.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 6, 2007)




----------



## Noodles (Feb 7, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Look at the Brits.  Practically every month, one right or another is infringed.  There's one camera for every 5 people living in the UK.  They were trying to pass (it may have already passed) a law that would force all cars to have GPS devices built into them so that they can be tracked at any time.
> 
> Oh, and nice post.



I live in England and I tend to agree with you that we have a lot of stupid laws, although I wouldn't say that I feel my rights are infringed by them.  You seem to have a slightly exagerated view of what the laws are like in the UK; I can honestly say that I don't feel there is anything that I would want to do in my day to day life that I wouldn't be able to because of British law.  

On the subject of guns, I totally agree that a ban in the US would not even be remotely feasable simply due to the amount of people that own guns there and the weird obsession you guys have with them (which I dont understand at all  )... But you can't deny the simple fact that the violent crime/murder rates in America are MUCH higher than in the UK.  The reason the gun ban works here is because it was rare for someone to own a gun before they were banned.  I have never experienced, nor do I even know anyone who has experienced any type of gun crime, which is obviously a good thing (you can't argue with that); definetely something I would be willing to give up my 'right' to own a gun for.  

And yeah I lolled at that GPS thing that was in the news aswell, it defiently is not going to be passed


----------



## BoneCrusher (Feb 7, 2007)

Noodles said:


> I live in England and I tend to agree with you that we have a lot of stupid laws, although I wouldn't say that I feel my rights are infringed by them.  You seem to have a slightly exagerated view of what the laws are like in the UK; I can honestly say that I don't feel there is anything that I would want to do in my day to day life that I wouldn't be able to because of British law.
> 
> On the subject of guns, I totally agree that a ban in the US would not even be remotely feasable simply due to the amount of people that own guns there and the weird obsession you guys have with them (which I dont understand at all  )... But you can't deny the simple fact that the violent crime/murder rates in America are MUCH higher than in the UK.  The reason the gun ban works here is because it was rare for someone to own a gun before they were banned.  I have never experienced, nor do I even know anyone who has experienced any type of gun crime, which is obviously a good thing (you can't argue with that); definetely something I would be willing to give up my 'right' to own a gun for.
> 
> And yeah I lolled at that GPS thing that was in the news aswell, it defiently is not going to be passed


I always hear how things in the UK are so much safer than here in the US.  I'm wondering if that's really true ...


----------



## Noodles (Feb 7, 2007)

Well I don't know how safe you feel living in America, and I've never been there so I can't really comment... But I know I feel pretty fucking safe living here where the chances of someone pulling a gun on you are slim to none.  Other than the obvious argument of 'I need it for protection yo' I really can't understand why you guys like hand guns so much... ffs its something that is designed specifically to kill/seriously injur someone.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Noodles said:


> I live in England and I tend to agree with you that we have a lot of stupid laws, although I wouldn't say that I feel my rights are infringed by them.  You seem to have a slightly exagerated view of what the laws are like in the UK; I can honestly say that I don't feel there is anything that I would want to do in my day to day life that I wouldn't be able to because of British law.



If my opinion is exaggerated, it's only because of all the crazy law I keep hearing about in the UK.  Which make sense, because people outside the US (and in, for that matter) hear about crap like the PATRIOT act and envision 1984, but I've never met someone that's even claimed to have been affected by it.



Noodles said:


> On the subject of guns, I totally agree that a ban in the US would not even be remotely feasable simply due to the amount of people that own guns there



It's more than just prior ownership.  You live on an island which makes is easy to protect against illegal imports.  The US has several thousand miles of land that directly border other countries.  



Noodles said:


> and the weird obsession you guys have with them (which I dont understand at all  )...



Most people own them because they're fun.  It's along the lines of archery.  The truth is that a very small percentage of guns fired in the US are used on living things (human or otherwise).  Most of the shooting in the country happens at shooting ranges.  I've done it and it's very fun.



Noodles said:


> But you can't deny the simple fact that the violent crime/murder rates in America are MUCH higher than in the UK.



Part of that issue, the numbers, is the way that Europeans message them. For instance, in most of the EU (perhaps all), when a person commits murder, or attempts it, but they get a reduced sentence, it doesn't count towards the murder statistics.  This is not how it works in the US.  Here, even if the charge is pleaded down, it still goes on the books as a murder (or attempted murder).

Another thing to keep in mind is that, here in the US, we have a lot of Mexicans (at least 12 million, perhaps as much as 20 million) that raise the murder rate.  The blacks (which we have more of), do the same.  Try this, pick state (try Texas, they have more guns than any other state), and get the murder statistics for Caucasians only.  Then compare that number to the UK (and then the average for EU).  You'll be _*very *_surprised.




Noodles said:


> And yeah I lolled at that GPS thing that was in the news aswell, it defiently is not going to be passed



I hope not.  That'd make Orwell spin in his grave.


----------



## fufu (Feb 7, 2007)

I have lived in USA for 13 years and I have never seen someone in public carry, or pull a gun. Aside from police.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

fufu said:


> I have lived in USA for 13 years and I have never seen someone in public carry, or pull a gun. Aside from police.



Me too.  I grew up in L.A. and have never seen a gun pulled on another person, except by cops...and one time it was at me.


----------



## Noodles (Feb 7, 2007)

DOMS said:


> Another thing to keep in mind is that, here in the US, we have a lot of Mexicans (at least 12 million, perhaps as much as 20 million) that raise the murder rate.  The blacks (which we have more of), do the same.  Try this, pick state (try Texas, they have more guns than any other state), and get the murder statistics for Caucasians only.  Then compare that number to the UK (and then the average for EU).  You'll be _*very *_surprised.



The rest of the stuff you said seems to be pretty fair but this is just stupid... I didn't say anything at all about white americans, I was talking about America as a place.  Fair enough if 'your race' isn't the cause, your country still has laws that allows criminals and scum (or blacks and mexicans as you call them  ) to pretty much freely buy fire arms and then you complain when these absolute cunts use them to commit crimes.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Noodles said:


> The rest of the stuff you said seems to be pretty fair but this is just stupid... I didn't say anything at all about white americans, I was talking about America as a place.  Fair enough if 'your race' isn't the cause, your country still has laws that allows criminals and scum (or blacks and mexicans as you call them  ) to pretty much freely buy fire arms and then you complain when these absolute cunts use them to commit crimes.



Okay then, let's bring up the crazy bomb exploding fascination of the Brits.   For quite a few years, you guys had a problem with killing each other with bombs.  You killed off tens thousand of your own people.  It happened from 1941-1945, I believe.   Oh wait, you were being _invaded_, and it wasn't really you Brits, it was the Germans.  

Well, we're being invaded too and they are doing horrible things to my country.  Not the least of which is raising the incidents of murder.


----------



## Noodles (Feb 7, 2007)

LOL thanks for the analogy, that makes your point much more valid


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Noodles said:


> LOL thanks for the analogy, that makes your point much more valid



Thanks.  

There's a town (city?) in Tennessee (I think) that has a law that if you're over the age of 17 that you must carry a gun.  Their level of violent crime is practically nil.


----------



## MCx2 (Feb 7, 2007)

fufu said:


> I have lived in USA for 13 years and I have never seen someone in public carry, or pull a gun. Aside from police.



Eh, I live in rural Florida. Most of the pick up trucks have gun racks in the rear window. This mechanic that I used to go to carried a 6 shooter on a holster. Good ole boy named Rocky. Oh yeah, and the kid that works for me, his father is always strapped.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2007)

Time for some humor:

AT THE DOCTOR'S OFFICE

A gorgeous young redhead goes into the doctor's office and said that her
body hurt wherever she touched it.

"Impossible!" says the doctor. "Show me."

The redhead took her finger, pushed on her left breast and screamed.  Then she pushed her elbow and screamed even more.  She
pushed her knee and screamed; likewise she pushed her ankle and
screamed.  Everywhere she touched made her scream.

The doctor said, "You're not really a redhead, are you?

"Well, no" she said, "I'm actually a blonde."

"I thought so," the doctor said. "Your finger is broken"


----------



## Noodles (Feb 7, 2007)

Blonde and a brunette fall off a cliff, who hits the ground first?



The brunette, the blonde has to stop to ask for directions.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 7, 2007)

I just don't believe in taking things away from everybody because of a few rotten eggs, those rotten eggs probably didn't come by the gun they used legally anyway so whats the point of banning them.  I can get a gun easier on the streets here in Hawaii than I can to walk into a gun store....and this is Hawaii with very few gun crimes....


----------



## goob (Feb 8, 2007)

fufu said:


> I have lived in USA for 13 years and I have never seen someone in public carry, or pull a gun. Aside from police.



Where did you come from before, if you've only been in the US for 13?


----------



## fufu (Feb 8, 2007)

goob said:


> Where did you come from before, if you've only been in the US for 13?



Portugal/Columbia, then some scattered months in other places.


----------



## ZECH (Feb 8, 2007)

Noodles said:


> Fair enough if 'your race' isn't the cause, your country still has laws that allows criminals and scum (or blacks and mexicans as you call them  ) to pretty much freely buy fire arms and then you complain when these absolute cunts use them to commit crimes.



What you have to remember is this...............Who ever commits these types of crimes, they don't buy the guns legally. They buy them illegally-off the streets(blackmarket). That will always happen, even if you ban them. That is why it won't make sense to ban guns. You are only taking them from the ones who abide by our laws.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 8, 2007)

dg806 said:


> What you have to remember is this...............Who ever commits these types of crimes, they don't buy the guns legally. They buy them illegally-off the streets(blackmarket). That will always happen, even if you ban them. That is why it won't make sense to ban guns. You are only taking them from the ones who abide by our laws.



I wish we could make all of the pro gun control people write that post on a chalk board until it is burn into their tiny little brains.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2007)

KelJu said:


> I wish we could make all of the pro gun control people write that post on a chalk board until it is burn into their tiny little brains.



They should have to write:

I do not think things through.
I do not think things through.
I do not think things through.
I do not think things through.
I do not think things through.
I do not think things through.
I do not think things through.
I do not think...


----------



## Noodles (Feb 8, 2007)

dg806 said:


> What you have to remember is this...............Who ever commits these types of crimes, they don't buy the guns legally. They buy them illegally-off the streets(blackmarket). That will always happen, even if you ban them. That is why it won't make sense to ban guns. You are only taking them from the ones who abide by our laws.




I know it doesn't make sense to ban guns in the US, thats what I said...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2007)

Noodles said:


> I know it doesn't make sense to ban guns in the US, thats what I said...



But it's the way you said it...


----------



## Noodles (Feb 8, 2007)

DOMS said:


> But it's the way you said it...



Because I didn't 100% agree with your opinion? sorry


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2007)

I was kidding.  Don't the woman in the UK use that line?

"It's not _what _you said, it's the _way _you said it."


----------



## Noodles (Feb 8, 2007)

Yeah I just didn't pick up on it... non-sarcastic sorry ;p


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2007)

_Good going..._


----------



## maniclion (Feb 8, 2007)

dg806 said:


> What you have to remember is this...............Who ever commits these types of crimes, they don't buy the guns legally. They buy them illegally-off the streets(blackmarket). That will always happen, even if you ban them. That is why it won't make sense to ban guns. You are only taking them from the ones who abide by our laws.


Hey thats what I said!!!    ?????

Criminals usually don't use a gun they registered under their name, they'll get one illegally, carry it until a)they bag somebody or b)they get caught with it.  The crimes committed with a registered owners gun is usually a crime of passion, and taking the guns away won't stop that, then they'll resort to bb guns, pepper spray, mallets and tape oh and astronaut diapers.....


----------



## KelJu (Feb 8, 2007)

maniclion said:


> Hey thats what I said!!!    ?????
> 
> Criminals usually don't use a gun they registered under their name, they'll get one illegally, carry it until a)they bag somebody or b)they get caught with it.  The crimes committed with a registered owners gun is usually a crime of passion, and taking the guns away won't stop that, then they'll resort to bb guns, pepper spray, mallets and tape oh and astronaut diapers.....



Lawl!


----------



## glassmouth (Feb 8, 2007)

There's about 200 million guns in the US so banning them wont do shit. If I cant get a gun to kill you, then I guess I'm just gonna have to go Medieval on your ass


----------



## Will Brink (Feb 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


> No kidding. I hope you pop into open chat more often Will. Yo usound like a smart and well educated person.



I have done a bit of research on the gun issue yes, but not as much as some. It's more a side hobbby to my nutritional/supplement/BBing research. Regardless, I fond it sad, but typical, that people who know nothing about guns, gun lwas, gun data, or history, seem to have no problems offering their opinion on the topic. I don't offer my opinion on quantum physics often. Why? 'Cause I don't knoe jack sh&* about the topic.


----------



## Will Brink (Feb 9, 2007)

NeilPearson said:


> As a Canadian... I have never had the desire to have a gun.  Why would you assume we would want them?  I have never understood the American obsession with wanting to have a gun.  It seems pretty pointless to me.
> 
> Don't get me wrong.  I am not anti-gun.  I just don't care either way.  I don't have a use for one.



You don't have to have a use for one. One often does not have a use for one until one NEEDS it. Regardless the issue is much larger then you or I. A worthy read:




The Next International Right
Thursday, October 17, 2002
By Glenn Harlan Reynolds


The past century was one of barbarism and mass murder, one in which the world stood by while large populations were exterminated by governments bent on power and possessed of the means of killing.

After World War II, the "international community" determined that the most important goal of the new international system created for the post-war era would be the prevention of genocide. "Never again," we were told, and nations signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in large numbers. 

Among the nations who signed were Cambodia (1950), the Congo (1962) and Rwanda (1975), though Rwanda was originally covered by Belgium???s agreement in 1952, when Rwanda was a Trust Territory administered by Belgium.

These three nations, of course, went on to become the greatest sites of genocide in the second half of the 20th century. (China's mass murders and starvation under Mao are more properly called "democide," as they did not single out a particular group or culture.)

In every case, the "international community" stood aside while the genocide took place unimpeded by the parchment barriers of international agreement. Tea, sympathy and peacekeeping forces were provided after the killing was done, but no action was taken to seriously inconvenience the killers while they were at work. International agreeements, and the international community, have proved as useless as the League of Nations was in confronting Mussolini's invasion of Ethiopia.

As one article on the Rwandan genocide in Foreign Affairs puts it:

As reports of genocide reached the outside world starting in late April, public outcry spurred the United Nations to reauthorize a beefed up "UNAMIR II" on May 17. During the following month, however, the U.N. was unable to obtain any substantial contributions of troops and equipment. As a result, on June 22 the Security Council authorized France to lead its own intervention, Operation Turquoise, by which time most Tutsi were already long dead.

Nor have efforts to deter genocide by trying killers after the fact done very well. As the magazine Legal Affairs reports, Rwandan killers have turned up actually on the payroll of the "International Court" designated to try war criminals. It is, said one observer, as if Klaus Barbie had turned up on the staff at Nuremberg. Pol Pot, meanwhile, apparently died in bed.

This has led some observers to suggest that genocide isn???t something that can be addressed by international conventions or tribunals. A recent article in the Washington University Law Quarterly argues that the most important thing we can do to prevent genocide is to ensure that civilian populations are armed:

The question of genocide is one of manifest importance in the closing years of a century that has been extraordinary for the quality and quantity of its bloodshed. As Elie Wiesel has rightly pointed out, "This century is the most violent in recorded history. Never have so many people participated in the killing of so many people."

Recent events in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and many other parts of the world make it clear that the book has not yet been closed on the evil of official mass murder. Contemporary scholars have little explored the preconditions of genocide. Still less have they asked whether a society's weapons policy might be one of the institutional arrangements that contributes to the probability of its government engaging in some of the more extreme varieties of outrage.

Though it is a long step between being disarmed and being murdered--one does not usually lead to the other--but it is nevertheless an arresting reality that not one of the principal genocides of the twentieth century, and there have been dozens, has been inflicted on a population that was armed. (Emphasis added).

The result, conclude law professor Daniel Polsby and criminologist Don Kates, is that "a connection exists between the restrictiveness of a country's civilian weapons policy and its liability to commit genocide."

Armed citizens, they argue, are far less likely to be massacred than defenseless ones, and armed resistance to genocide is more likely to receive outside aid. It is probably no accident that the better-armed resistance to genocide in Bosnia and Kosovo drew international intervention, while the hapless Rwandans and Cambodians did not. When victims resist, what is merely cause for horror becomes cause for alarm, and those who are afraid of the conflict???s spread will support (as Europe did) intervention out of self-interest when they could not be bothered to intervene out of compassion.

It is no wonder that genocide is so often preceded by efforts to disarm the people.

Current events in Zimbabwe appear to be playing out in the fashion that Polsby and Kates warn against. If this is the case, then surely the human rights community could be expected to take on the subject of armed citizens, particularly as the right to arms is far closer to the individual rights that make up the "first generation" of internationally recognized human rights.

After all, the human rights community has long argued that all sorts of dramatic changes in international law are justified if they might make genocide unlikely and has been nothing less than flexible in discovering such "post-first-generation" human rights as "developmental rights," "environmental rights" and a "right to peace."

In fact, the human rights community has addressed the issue -- but from the wrong side. They seem generally supportive of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan???s effort to put in place a global gun control regime "including a prohibition of unrestricted trade and private ownership of small arms."

In other words, in the face of evidence that an armed populace prevents genocide, the human rights community has largely gotten behind a campaign to ensure that there will be no armed populaces anywhere in the world.

It seems to me that the human rights community has things exactly backward. Given that the efforts of the international community to prevent and punish genocide over the past several decades have been, to put it politely, a dismal failure, perhaps it is time to try a new approach. International human rights law is supposed to be a "living" body of law that changes with the needs of the times in order to secure important goals -- chief among which is the prevention of genocide. Given that the traditional approaches of conventions and tribunals have failed miserably, the human rights community should be prepared to endorse a new international human right: the right of law-abiding citizens to be armed.

It may seem odd to make such an argument at a time when D.C. is being terrorized by a mysterious gunman. But no one should pretend that rights do not have costs. We recognize the right to free speech not because we believe that speech does no harm, but because we believe that free speech has benefits that outweigh the harm. We recognize the right to abortion not because we believe that it is costless, but because the cost of having the state supervise women???s pregnancies is seen as worse. And we recognize the freedom of religion not because religion is safe -- it can and does lead to violence, as the worldwide epidemic of Islamic terrorism demonstrates -- but because having the government prescribe what is orthodox is worse.

Similarly, an armed populace might conceivably lead to more crime (though the criminological evidence suggests otherwise). But even if one believes that widespread ownership of firearms by law-abiding citizens leads to somewhat more crime, that is not by itself an argument against creating such a right, merely a cost to be set against the increased protection from genocide that such a right would provide.

Given the high value that we (supposedly, at least) place on preventing genocide, it seems unlikely that minor increases in crime rates could justify eliminating such a protection.

I wonder if the Bush administration???s diplomatic corps will have the nerve and the integrity to push this argument at the U.N. and elsewhere, not merely as an argument in opposition to global gun control, which they have been making already, but an argument in favor of a positive right to be armed as part of international human rights law? Perhaps they will, if enough Americans encourage them to.

Glenn Harlan Reynolds is a law professor at the University of Tennessee and publishes InstaPundit.Com. He is co-author, with Peter W. Morgan, of The Appearance of Impropriety: How the Ethics Wars Have Undermined American Government, Business, and Society (The Free Press, 1997).


----------



## Will Brink (Feb 9, 2007)

Noodles said:


> .. But you can't deny the simple fact that the violent crime/murder rates in America are MUCH higher than in the UK.  The reason the gun ban works here is because it was rare for someone to own a gun before they were banned.  I



What???s stunning to me is how many people from the UK know so little about their own crime rates. The UK has the highest crime rates of any European country and exceeds the US in many forms of crime. Furthermore, an attempt to ban guns has done nothing but INCREAESED you gun crime rates. Really, do some  research first, 

On your crime rates:

???Britain has the worst record in western Europe for killings, violence and burglary and its citizens face one of the highest risks in the industrialized world of becoming victims of crime, a study has shown.??? 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...rim25.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=50048

Regarding the effects of gun control attempts in Britian:


EDMONTON JOURNAL
Britain proves gun control is wrong: Gun crime nearly doubled after law-abiding Brits surrendered their handguns
Friday 14 May 2005

p. A18
On March 13, 1996, Thomas Hamilton walked into an elementary school in Dunblane, Scotland, with three pistols and shot dead 16 young children and one of their teachers. 

In the wake of this horrific massacre of innocents, a judicial inquiry recommended more stringent rules for handgun ownership in Britain, but cautioned against an outright ban. 

Politicians being politicians, though, they sought to prove they were
acting to prevent a recurrence of such a shooting (as if anyone can
prevent lunatics from acting insanely) by passing a law forbidding
ordinary civilians from possessing handguns. Handgun owners were given
until February 1998 to hand in all their guns. 

In all, about 162,000 handguns and 700 tonnes of ammunition were
surrendered to police. 

Jack Straw, currently Britain's foreign secretary, but at the time the
home secretary, pronounced the hand-in a "tremendous success" and
predicted it would make England, Scotland and Wales very much safer. 

Tuesday, the gun-crime statistics for the first five years of this
experiment in citizen disarmament were released. And what has been the
result? The incidence of gun crime in England and Wales has nearly
doubled from 13,874 in 1998 to 24,070 in 2003. And the incidence of
firearms murder, while thankfully still very small, has risen 65 per
cent. 

Politicians being politicians, they of course have not drawn the
obvious parallel. When the statistics were released earlier this week,
no official even mentioned the total handgun ban. (Not even Britain's
Olympic sport shooters are permitted to own handguns for competition.) 

It never even occurred to British politicians and reporters to make a
connection. Banning handguns was an important symbol in the wake of the
Dunblane shootings. It was the right thing to do at the time. Its
intended consequences, realized or not, well, they're secondary. 

The ban was a "then" solution, the spiral in gun crime is a "now"
problem -- different matters entirely to the chattering classes. 

It's not necessarily the case that the stripping of guns from ordinary,
law-abiding gun owners caused the explosion in gun crime by leaving the
population defenceless against armed criminals. 

There is almost surely some cause and effect, though. 

Another report released last year by Britain's Home Office revealed
that since the late 1990s, robbery has jumped dramatically, too. It rose
by 28 per cent in 2002 alone and, since 1998, there has been an increase
in the annual average of muggings of more than 100,000. England alone
has nearly 400,000 robberies each year, a rate nearly one-quarter higher
per capita than that of the United States. 

It is entirely likely that some of the increase in the past five years
has stemmed from an increased confidence among criminals that ordinary
citizens almost certainly have no guns in their homes. 

But it is unlikely the handgun ban accounts for all or even most of the
increase. France has had a similar upward spike in robberies over the
past five years without banning guns. France, too, now has a violent
crime rate at or above the Americans', with the exception of murder. 

For some reason, no one in the industrialized world murders one another
like Americans. However, in most other categories of violent and
property crime, the rest of us are catching up. 

The likely causes of Britain's crime wave (and France's and Germany's
and the Netherlands' and so on) are illegal immigration, drug wars and
extremely lenient treatment of convicted criminals. Holland is set to
deport 30,000 failed refugee claimants over the coming months in part in
hopes of reducing high levels of crime. 

However, even if confiscating guns from law-abiding citizens does not
prompt new heights of violent crime, it does not follow that seizure is
a neutral act. 

The best that can be said of it is that it is totally useless. As such,
it is pointless. 

Yet seizure also amounts to a forfeiture of private property by persons
who have committed no crime (and thus have given the state no legitimate
reason to take their property). So its pointlessness is a deep violation
of individual liberty. 

If the seizure of private guns does not prevent crime -- and from the
British example it is clear it does not -- then there is no common good
that could possibly justify seizure. 

And if Britain's mandatory hand-in encouraged even a few hundred
robberies and a handful of murders by emboldening criminals, then the
hand-in was a crime by the state against law-abiding citizens. 

Similarly, the registry forced on Canadian gun owners nearly a decade
ago has been totally useless. If taking guns away is not enough to
prevent gun crimes, how could collecting registrations on guns to fill
government databases do any better? 

The problem is criminals with guns, period. Targeting law-abiding
owners, whether through registration or confiscation, is looking in the
wrong place for a solution to gun crime. 

There have been rumours out of Ottawa for months now that the Liberals
intend to make Canada's registry less intrusive and expensive,
friendlier to "legitimate gun owners." 

Even if it is made less harsh and simpler to use, so long as it
continues to focus on lawful owners instead of criminals, it will merely
be a kinder, simpler sort of useless.
_______________________
Lorne Gunter
Columnist, Edmonton Journal
Editorial Board Member, National Post
tele: (780) 916-0719
fax: (780) 481-4735
e-mail: lgunter@shaw.ca 
132 Quesnell Cres NW
Edmonton AB T5R 5P2


----------



## Will Brink (Feb 9, 2007)

BoneCrusher said:


> I always hear how things in the UK are so much safer than here in the US.  I'm wondering if that's really true ...



It's not. See my other posts.


----------



## KelJu (Feb 9, 2007)

Excellent information Will. It took me a while, but that was a very good read. It helps prove DG's main point that disarming increases crime, not the other way around.


----------



## Will Brink (Feb 9, 2007)

KelJu said:


> Excellent information Will. It took me a while, but that was a very good read. It helps prove DG's main point that disarming increases crime, not the other way around.



That is a fact.


----------



## maniclion (Feb 9, 2007)

The sports riots in England get more out of control than they do here in the US, soccer hooligans are fucking completely insane...


----------

