Gun control question... which would you prefer?

[GinNJuice]

Ok, I want the gun-control people to answer this hypothitical question:

You and you Sig. Other have broken down on the side of a road with very little traffic. Some guy walks up and asks if you need help, then he pulls out a gun on you.

He says he's gonna rape and then kill you. There is no hope for someone coming along to help you, and there is now way that you can take the gun away from the guy because he'll kill you first.

Would you rather die knowing that you didn't have a gun of your own that he would take afterwards and commit another crime.

Or, would you wish you had a gun to give you a chance to disable or kill the perp before he killed you and your Sig. Other.

????

Post your comments.

 

[Bullit]

LMAO.... "would you rather die, or have a shot at living?"

You honestly think anyone will say that they would rather die?

 

[GinNJuice]

Bullit, I really do think that some of these gun control freaks would rather die

 

[the nature boy]

you are king hypothetical.

 

[Bullit]

I am an advocate for gun control, but gimmie a fuckin break. This question is idiotic.

 

[GinNJuice]

No Mullit, this is a preliminary question.

So, in my example, you would want to have a gun on you. But, how does that fit in with your gun control advocacy?

 

[Prometheus]

So, in my example, you would want to have a gun on you. But, how does that fit in with your gun control advocacy?

all gun control advocates operate under the assumption that they themselves:

1) are exempt from the laws they wish to impose on the lesser people (rosie o'donnel, kofi annon, hillary, bill, chuck schumer, etc. - all of whom have armed bodyguards)

2) will never be overpowered by a criminal.

 

[Bullit]

C'mon... when your life is on the line any 'advocacy' issues quickly get shown the door.

If someone held your mom/wife/kid hostage and would kill her unless you became a rabid gun control advocate ... wouldnt you do it?

 

[bwood]

you need to change your
post as the term sig confused
me at first as i thought you were
riding with your sig-sauer, which
seemed, well, confusing...

after several careful re-reads,
(using the nature boy technique )
it finally made sense...

 

[Code]

The gun control boyz *want* to get raped.

 

[GinNJuice]

C'mon... when your life is on the line any 'advocacy' issues quickly get shown the door.

EXACTLY, so, maybe YOU won't be in this situation, but we know someone will...... so why would gun control advocates like yourself take this ability to defend one's self away from another?

 

[the nature boy]

well to some, a sig sauer is a sig other.

I'm all for gun control, but I don't know if I really like the idea of everyone walking around with a gun. I mean, half the people don't even know how to drive a car properly. So I expect these people to be able to use a weapon correctly?

 

[Bullit]

well.. the thing is this...
The country that has by far the most murders by gunfire is also the country that has the most lax gun control laws. Now, maybe you eventually get to a point where there are so many guns out there that it is actually better for everyone to have one. Perhaps this is the case in the US. However in Canada I am quite happy to say that we are not even remotely close to this saturated level. Neither are the European countries.

But really... havent you heard all this before?

HEY.. you didnt answer my hypothetical qustion!!!

 

[GinNJuice]

I'm all for gun control, but I don't know if I really like the idea of everyone walking around with a gun.

With the use the word "but" I'm assuming that you wanted to say that "I'm NOT all for gun contol"


Anyway NB, you didn't answer my origninal question. Would you rather have the gun on you and have a chance at living, or die?

 

[Bullit]

EXACTLY, so, maybe YOU won't be in this situation, but we know someone will...... so why would gun control advocates like yourself take this ability to defend one's self away from another?

lol... if all guns were used purely in a defensive fashion then I am all for everyone packin heat.

 

[GinNJuice]

Mullit, I of course I would LIE and say that I was a gun control advocate...... just to get my loved ones released.

 

[p0ink]

liberals againse crime control, but for gun control

(Mr. ROGAN asked and was given permission to address the House for 1 minute and to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. ROGAN. Mr. Speaker, first I want to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle who have been reading a list of names: I think that is entirely appropriate that we remember the names of children who died by gun violence at the hands of criminals. But that tells part of the story. Perhaps it would be appropriate today if we also read the names of liberals in this Chamber who have consistently voted against building more prisons to house violent criminals; the names of liberals who consistently vote against tough-on-crime measures, the names of liberals who today support a President of the United States who grants clemency to terrorists.

We ought to read the names of innocent victims who have defended themselves against gun violence over the years. Let us read the names of women who have defended themselves against rape, or defended children in their home. Let us remember the names of the Founding Fathers who intended every law-abiding American to have that right of defense against gun violence. Let us hold people accountable for illegal actions, and let us hold politicians accountable that talk about gun control out of one side of their mouth, then consistently refuse to do anything about crime control.

 

[GinNJuice]

Now, maybe you eventually get to a point where there are so many guns out there that it is actually better for everyone to have one. Perhaps this is the case in the US. However in Canada I am quite happy to say that we are not even remotely close to this saturated level.

I wonder if you have any statistics on robberies in Canada and those used with a firarm (I assume you can have a rifle in Canada?)

Also, let's not forget that, although Canada has a lot of land, they have only a fraction of the population of the U.S.

 

[the nature boy]

With the use the word "but" I'm assuming that you wanted to say that "I'm NOT all for gun contol"


Anyway NB, you didn't answer my origninal question. Would you rather have the gun on you and have a chance at living, or die?

of course I'd rather have a chance at living.

what is your point dude?

 

[Bullit]

Also, let's not forget that, although Canada has a lot of land, they have only a fraction of the population of the U.S.

Yeah, I know. The stat is a per capita stat, not a total deaths stat.

 

[Prometheus]

well.. the thing is this...
The country that has by far the most murders by gunfire is also the country that has the most lax gun control laws.

the municipality of NYC, despite having some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, has a far higher per capita gun violence rate than does the state of Vermont, where there are no restrictions on gun ownership and concealed carrying.

 

[GinNJuice]

of course I'd rather have a chance at living.

what is your point dude?

Aaahhhhh, you want my point huh?

My point is that the gun-control freaks are admitted hypocrites if they are poised with this hypothetical (but very realistic) situation.

That situation happens every day around the country, but gun control advocates don't want the law-abiding citizen to be able to defend themselves....... until they think they might be in that situation. THEN all of the sudden it's ok to to be able to defend one's self

 

[Bullit]

My point is that the gun-control freaks are admitted hypocrites if they are poised with this hypothetical (but very realistic) situation.

That situation happens every day around the country, but gun control advocates don't want the law-abiding citizen to be able to defend themselves....... until they think they might be in that situation. THEN all of the sudden it's ok to to be able to defend one's self

Wrong. Its always ok to defend yourself. Anybody, not just me. What I would hope to achieve via gun control is not that you cant defend yourself, but that there are far less of offenders with guns, so that your example wouldnt even happen in the first place.

(btw - I am not a "freak" about it).

 

[the nature boy]

That situation happens every day around the country, but gun control advocates don't want the law-abiding citizen to be able to defend themselves....... until they think they might be in that situation. THEN all of the sudden it's ok to to be able to defend one's self

it does not. prove it.

 

[1911]

Excessive speed is controlled / illegal. I still drive fast.

Fuckin' a 17 year-old chic is controlled / illegal. I've done that.

Smokin' pot is controlled / illegal. I smoke (good) weed on occasion.

Control guns or make them illegal. I will still have mine.

Funny thing is; I'm the guy livin' next door to you and your family that is well liked and respected by friends, peers and society at-large.

People pick & choose what they want to control based on their perspective of the world (experiences, biases, etc.). Bottom-line, control advocates can put what they want on the books. They will still have lost because I, and people like me, will never go away.

To the question; "Would I carry?" I probably already am! Oh...yeah...and in my current state of residence...CCW is illegal. Controls work, eh?

Later,

 

[GinNJuice]

Wrong. Its always ok to defend yourself. Anybody, not just me. What I would hope to achieve via gun control is not that you cant defend yourself, but that there are far less of offenders with guns, so that your example wouldnt even happen in the first place.

Well, the idealistic world and the real world are different. What, do you expect that all of the sudden the U.S. passes strong gun control laws...... and all the criminals are nice enough to turn their guns in to law enforcement? NO

Not only would my example happen, but it would be worse!

On the otherhand, if all law abiding citizens were "packing heat" then my example would be LESS likely to happen.

It's ok to have Ideals (I have my own), but I also know I have to live in the real world

 

[Bullit]

Well, the idealistic world and the real world are different. What, do you expect that all of the sudden the U.S. passes strong gun control laws...... and all the criminals are nice enough to turn their guns in to law enforcement? NO

Not only would my example happen, but it would be worse!

On the otherhand, if all law abiding citizens were "packing heat" then my example would be LESS likely to happen.

It's ok to have Ideals (I have my own), but I also know I have to live in the real world

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.viii

Canada has approx 1/10th the population of the us, so 106 here is like 1,060 vs the US 9,390.


nuff' said. I'm done.

 

[GinNJuice]

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.viii

Canada has approx 1/10th the population of the us, so 106 here is like 1,060 vs the US 9,390.


nuff' said. I'm done.

Wow, no cowboy, I didn't ask about "handgun" or "murders" I was wondering about firearm's being used for robberies.

 

[Bullit]

Lets kiss and make up.

 

[the nature boy]

it does not. prove it.

bump.

 

[cockdezl]

well to some, a sig sauer is a sig other.

I'm all for gun control, but I don't know if I really like the idea of everyone walking around with a gun. I mean, half the people don't even know how to drive a car properly. So I expect these people to be able to use a weapon correctly?

Do you realize that the Founders of this country wrote the 2nd amendment into the constitution, which guarantees everyone the right to own a gun, yet they did not write an amendment guarantying everyone the right to vote?

They understood that voting was a more dangerous act, when given to those who do not understand its ramifications, than the simple ownership of a gun.

And don't try to throw discrimination into the right to vote, the original right to vote was also founded in land ownership, so many white men could not vote.

 

[the nature boy]

Do you realize that the Founders of this country wrote the 2nd amendment into the constitution, which guarantees everyone the right to own a gun, yet they did not write an amendment guarantying everyone the right to vote?

They understood that voting was a more dangerous act, when given to those who do not understand its ramifications, than the simple ownership of a gun.

And don't try to throw discrimination into the right to vote, the original right to vote was also founded in land ownership, so many white men could not vote.

you are absolutely right, the were afraid of what the uneducated masses might do if they all voted as one block. the citizens were not to be trusted and thought that you and I must be lied to in some cases.

As for the right to bear arms, this line part of the consitiution has been so twisted around. they were talking about bearing arms in a militia, not talking about everyone holding a concealed weapon.

I'm all for weapons at home, but I don't like incompitents walking around in public with guns. but that's just me.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

you are absolutely right, the were afraid of what the uneducated masses might do if they all voted as one block. the citizens were not to be trusted and thought that you and I must be lied to in some cases.

As for the right to bear arms, this line part of the consitiution has been so twisted around. they were talking about bearing arms in a militia, not talking about everyone holding a concealed weapon.

I'm all for weapons at home, but I don't like incompitents walking around in public with guns. but that's just me.

Do you really believe that gun control laws that do not allow people to walk around with guns actually work. Why in the world would criminals follow these laws yet they dont follow the others? You think it is fair for me to be defenseless on the street while these morons with black market guns walk around. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Forget about concealed weapons. I would love to see people walking around with their weapons out in the open. If you were trying to rob somone would you pick someone carrying a gun in plain sight?

People should be able to own and carry any type of gun they choose. There should not be one gun that is illegal whether it be military class or not. If I want a fully automatic assault rifle, then it is my damn right to have one.

 

[the nature boy]

Do you really believe that gun control laws that do not allow people to walk around with guns actually work. Why in the world would criminals follow these laws yet they dont follow the others? You think it is fair for me to be defenseless on the street while these morons with black market guns walk around. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

People should be able to own and carry any type of gun they choose. There should not be one gun that is illegal whether it be military class or not. If I want a fully automatic assault rifle, then it is my damn right to have one.

learn to read. I never said gun control laws worked or didnt work. I simply said I prefer idiots not walk around with guns in public simply because I don't feel like getting shot.

and no it's not your right to have an assault rifle. tell me where it says that in the constitution. It says you may bear arms in a public militia. or maybe it doesn't.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

learn to read. I never said gun control laws worked or didnt work. I simply said I prefer idiots not walk around with guns in public simply because I don't feel like getting shot.

and no it's not your right to have an assault rifle. tell me where it says that in the constitution. It says you may bear arms in a public militia. or maybe it doesn't.

Didn't you state somewhere above that you were all for gun control? Sounds to me like you think that bullshit works.

www.dictionary.com

arm2 Pronunciation Key (ärm)
n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.

Just admit that you were wrong.

 

[the nature boy]

show me where I did. I'm all for guns, I just prefer people keep them at home.

Just admit you are wrong.

assualt rifle or handgun, the constitution states the right to bear arms pertains to militias.

I'd like to hear whatever psudo witty comeback you have. I can't wait.

 

[the nature boy]

oh and i own a glock 21, I've stated that on at least one thread.

I really hate guns lmao.

 

[dballer]

gun control is for people who have never had an attempt made on their life.

I used to be one of them.

 

[cockdezl]

you are absolutely right, the were afraid of what the uneducated masses might do if they all voted as one block. the citizens were not to be trusted and thought that you and I must be lied to in some cases.

Incorrect. You have obviously never read any of the Founding Fathers' writings. "Governments" are never to be trusted.

The idea of only allowing land owners the right to vote, aided in limiting the control of government growth, because a land owner had a stronger vested interest in the country. Remember "the power to tax is the power to destroy", and land owners had more taxable assets than did non-land owners.

Modern day example: a property tax is proposed to pay for some social program, which most times goes to non-property owners. Under current situations, non-property owners align up to vote for this tax, since they will not have to pay for it, thus making some pay for the "benefits" of others. This is the definition of a true democracy, which our founders despised.

As for the right to bear arms, this line part of the consitiution has been so twisted around. they were talking about bearing arms in a militia, not talking about everyone holding a concealed weapon.

Please reference this above claim. I have never seen any writings that support this claim.

I'm all for weapons at home, but I don't like incompitents walking around in public with guns. but that's just me.

Your argument is trying to assert that this will be the case. Concealed Carry Permit states do not generally show that this is the case. Most show no increase, even with the increase in gun possession, or reduction in crimes. Read John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime".

 

[dimitrios]

Do you really believe that gun control laws that do not allow people to walk around with guns actually work. Why in the world would criminals follow these laws yet they dont follow the others? You think it is fair for me to be defenseless on the street while these morons with black market guns walk around. You have got to be fucking kidding me.

Forget about concealed weapons. I would love to see people walking around with their weapons out in the open. If you were trying to rob somone would you pick someone carrying a gun in plain sight?

People should be able to own and carry any type of gun they choose. There should not be one gun that is illegal whether it be military class or not. If I want a fully automatic assault rifle, then it is my damn right to have one.

I agree with you, you would look kinda funny with an automatic assault rifle strapped to your side, But I feel the same way, have your weapon on your side and everyone can see it. I'm sure they would think twice before doing anything to you. Myself and wife both carry conceiled weapons and we feel very safe. In Florida it's your right to carry a gun if you have gone through your saftey class. Gun Control=Being able to hit your target

 

[the nature boy]

Incorrect. You have obviously never read any of the Founding Fathers' writings. "Governments" are never to be trusted.

wrong, the founding father were more interested in keeping power to the rich and opulent.

'The landed interest, at present, is prevalent, but in process of time . . . " when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small . . . will not the landed interests be overbalanced in future elections? and, unless " wisely provided against, what will become of our government? In England, at this day, if elections ctions were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the o opulent against the majority. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.'

above is a quote from madison, he was totally against the masses having a say in electoral business, he was for consolidation of power within the upper class.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/Parrington/bk03_01_ch02.html

and the 2nd amendment states

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it applies to militias.

 

[Frackal]

all gun control advocates operate under the assumption that they themselves:

1) are exempt from the laws they wish to impose on the lesser people (rosie o'donnel, kofi annon, hillary, bill, chuck schumer, etc. - all of whom have armed bodyguards)

2) will never be overpowered by a criminal.

Good points

 

[cockdezl]

wrong, the founding father were more interested in keeping power to the rich and opulent.

'The landed interest, at present, is prevalent, but in process of time . . . " when the number of landholders shall be comparatively small . . . will not the landed interests be overbalanced in future elections? and, unless " wisely provided against, what will become of our government? In England, at this day, if elections ctions were open to all classes of people, the property of landed proprietors would be insecure. An agrarian law would take place. If these observations be just, our government ought to secure the permanent interests of the country against innovation. Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the o opulent against the majority. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority.'

above is a quote from madison, he was totally against the masses having a say in electoral business, he was for consolidation of power within the upper class.

Did you not even read the article you presented???

Property, they argued, is the stabilizing force in society; it is conservative and cautious; having everything to lose by social upheavals, it is a restraining force upon factional unrest. The propertyless, on the other hand, having nothing to lose, easily become the victims of demagogues and embroil society with foolish experiments. The republican experiment might work in America because property was widely distributed, but in the course of time a propertyless majority would arise, whose fickle and subversive will must be held in check. The problem, therefore, was to provide in time against such an eventuality. Certain members of the convention did not go so far in their fear of the propertyless, but relied upon the ability of property to protect itself by extra-legal means. "Give the votes to people who have no property," argued Gouverneur Morris, "and they will sell them to the rich, who will be able to buy them."

He did not wish to "concentrate" power, but to "protect" it from democratic seizure. One could become a voter if one acquired property.

The philosophical principle of "right to property" is threatened by those who do not HAVE property and their propensity to vote for property redistribution.

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~hyper/Parrington/bk03_01_ch02.html

and the 2nd amendment states

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

it applies to militias.

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

United States v. Miller, 1939

"The Second Amendment embodies the right to defend oneself and one's home against physical attack."

United States v. Gomez, 81 F.3d 846, on page 850, see note 7.

Note the amendment states "...the right of the PEOPLE...". The Founding members were wary of a standing army, since it could be used by the government to control the subjects, therefore they favored the idea of a "militia".

 

[the nature boy]

well you've got me. I don't know what I was thinking, I read some shit once that was more speculatoin about the motives of the Founding Fathers. So it was stuck in my head and I tried using it but really I didn't have or know any info to defend it.

As for guns, I don't think they meant for people to be walking around in the streets with concealed weapons. Did they do that shit during that time period?!?!????!?!?!?! No! I just think it's a litte excessive to be holding a piece everwhere you go. I know I'm in the minority here, but that is freaky shit.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

show me where I did. I'm all for guns, I just prefer people keep them at home.

Just admit you are wrong.

assualt rifle or handgun, the constitution states the right to bear arms pertains to militias.

I'd like to hear whatever psudo witty comeback you have. I can't wait.

Did you not post the following....

well to some, a sig sauer is a sig other.

I'm all for gun control, but I don't know if I really like the idea of everyone walking around with a gun. I mean, half the people don't even know how to drive a car properly. So I expect these people to be able to use a weapon correctly

Maybe is was a typing error or whatever but I was just going by exactly what YOU posted.

 

[the nature boy]

damn, I did say that. that's not what I meant though. I meant gun ownership. Because that sentence doesn't make sense.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

damn, I did say that. that's not what I meant though. I meant gun ownership. Because that sentence doesn't make sense.

no problem. I understand you now, but still disagree.

I just want you to know how myself or my girlfriend should protect ourselves if we were not allowed to carry a concealed gun. Please do not say pepper spray or call the cops. Trust me, that rarely works in certain situations. Just the presence of a gun can sometimes prevent a crime from happening.

I dont believe in punishing some of us because of a few idiots who like to abuse this right. I think of this like I do steroids. This shit is illegal because we have a few dumbasses who abuse the shit and fuck up themselves. Same with other types of drugs.

 

[KA-BAR]

God thats just smoooooth FUCKED up that these motherfuckers you listed talk sooooo much shit about guns and yet they have them!!@!! WTF. WE can have them but you cant! WTF god damn fucking hypocrites. I hate them carpet munching lezbos and that dick suck schumer

all gun control advocates operate under the assumption that they themselves:

1) are exempt from the laws they wish to impose on the lesser people (rosie o'donnel, kofi annon, hillary, bill, chuck schumer, etc. - all of whom have armed bodyguards)

2) will never be overpowered by a criminal.

 

[the nature boy]

no problem. I understand you now, but still disagree.

I just want you to know how myself or my girlfriend should protect ourselves if we were not allowed to carry a concealed gun. Please do not say pepper spray or call the cops. Trust me, that rarely works in certain situations. Just the presence of a gun can sometimes prevent a crime from happening.

I dont believe in punishing some of us because of a few idiots who like to abuse this right. I think of this like I do steroids. This shit is illegal because we have a few dumbasses who abuse the shit and fuck up themselves. Same with other types of drugs.

I'm not trying to sound sarcastic, but where do you live that you feel the need to carry a weapon? If I ever felt the need to constantly carry a weapon, then I'd move. I don't need that.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

I'm not trying to sound sarcastic, but where do you live that you feel the need to carry a weapon? If I ever felt the need to constantly carry a weapon, then I'd move. I don't need that.

It really makes no difference where a person lives. A crime can happen anywhere at anytime. It is fine that you do not want to carry a gun, but who are you and any others to think that I should not be able to. I carry it as a precaution, not so I can go on a random shooting spree.

BTW: I live in Memphis (a shithole now overrun by black democrats who are nothing more than self-serving pieces of shit).

 

[Lao Tzu]

I'm going to have to add this to my list of rhetorical political questions, right up there with curlings 'would you let douchebag liberals create a one world government. yes/no, post your opinions'

You have to take into account that many liberals who advocate gun control are under the impression that gun control would prevent the mugger from having a gun in the first place.

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

You have to take into account that many liberals who advocate gun control are under the impression that gun control would prevent the mugger from having a gun in the first place.

Well the 20,000 plus laws we have now sure as hell do not seem to work, so what makes them think that one more will?

Seems they are living in a fantasy land once again.

 

[Lao Tzu]

Hell if i know, but that is the main impedus behind gun control, that it will prevent people from misusing guns.

 

[the nature boy]

It really makes no difference where a person lives. A crime can happen anywhere at anytime. It is fine that you do not want to carry a gun, but who are you and any others to think that I should not be able to. I carry it as a precaution, not so I can go on a random shooting spree.

BTW: I live in Memphis (a shithole now overrun by black democrats who are nothing more than self-serving pieces of shit).

I guess we think differently is all. I don't feel like I need to carry a gun. Mabye I'm just living in my own delusional world, but I'm glad I don't feel the urgency to wear one. If you want to then hey I can respect that, that's how you feel. But personally I don't feel the need.

 

[Lao Tzu]

I thought it was illegal to own a gun in Washington D.C.

 

[the nature boy]

I live outside, in falls chuch. like 10 miles or so away, but I'd rather say DC than northern virginia. It just sounds better.

 

[Nutri-Wrestler]

I have written a couple reports on the issue of gun control. it seems the wild west wasnt as wild as everyone thinks simply b/c no one knew who was packin. the murder and death rate was a lot less back then.

gun owners should not be held responsible for the irresponsibility of others, such as IDIOTS who leave a laoded weapon where a child can locate it. Also, anyone who owns a gun should be smart enough to educate their kids not to touch the gun, for example, they touch the gun you smack the piss out of them. yeah, it might be extreme now, but how many kids do u know died of accidental gun violence back then. if u really wanna make an impression on your little one, then make him sit down and watch bambi, then, the next day, take him deer hunting and kill a deer and let the kid watch it die. they will quicklly learn.

statistics show that more crimes are stopped by armed citizens than crimes that actually follow through without being stopped.

One questuion, if i was a criminal, why the fuck would i care about gun control laws? even if guns were to be banned, criminals would obtain them easy. the only people lacking the guns would be the citizens.

oh and you have a better chance of living if you don not cooperate and try to kill the bastard that is attacking you, its a fact.

Ross

 

[KA-BAR]

The Gov refuses to enforce the laws we have now. Project exile was created by the NRA and tested in Virgina. They made a law that any violent crime committed with a gun carried a min term of 5 year imprisonment and guess what? Wild Bill Clinton stopped it! They want to take the guns from law biding citizens so the criminals can have a field day. Fucking Liberals.

Well the 20,000 plus laws we have now sure as hell do not seem to work, so what makes them think that one more will?

Seems they are living in a fantasy land once again.

 

[the nature boy]

if it was a state law then how did the executive branch stop that law?

 

[circusgirl]

the municipality of NYC, despite having some of the strictest gun control laws in the US, has a far higher per capita gun violence rate than does the state of Vermont, where there are no restrictions on gun ownership and concealed carrying.

yeah yeah yeah but NO-ONE LIVES IN VERMONT. You get angry and want to shoot someone - you need to drive 30 miles to find anyone.....

I would prefer a knife as a defensive weapon myself, if it were legal to carry one. Less obvious at a distance, more versatile, and at close range, apparently more lethal....

The issue is proper training in the use and consequences of sue of a firearm. Plenty of folks round my home town have guns in their home - they are farmers and they use the guns to shoot strays and vermin like foxes.

Do they EVER shoot each other, do their kids EVER go near the guns, do the kids EVER get access t firearms? No.

Because these guys KNOW that a loaded gun is not something you just tote round like an accessory like people do in the movies, it is a serisouly dangerous weapon that must be respected as such.

Now, I think if your average Joe was sent on a nice long mandatory training course - after all, I had to have zillions of lessons plus plenty practice before I could get my driving licence, why not have to demonstrate proficiency and "roadworthiness" with a gun before getting a licence?

And we need to stop presenting guns as somehow a prop to masculinity, or shooting someone as a kind of fashion statement, like the movies do.

I think in that case you'd have far fewer gun deaths with plenty of guns about for protection. (cf Switzerland).

 

[Nutri-Wrestler]

In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada and 9,390 in the United States.viii

Canada has approx 1/10th the population of the us, so 106 here is like 1,060 vs the US 9,390.


nuff' said. I'm done.

If ya wanna get real technical, take all the hand gun related murders in the US and subtract them from toal murders. You will find out that our total murders (stabbing, blunt trauma wounds....) are higher than the TOTAL murder count of most countries. America just has a more violent part in society (go to the projects, if ur white, u wont last long).

If your gonna outlaw guns, might as well outlaw bats and kinives while your at it. Shit, outlaw cars, they kill more people every year then almost anything else.

Ross

 

[Soup Server]

shame on you guys. guns are designed soley for the purpose of killing humans and little animals. it will be a great day when i can walk the streets of america without having to worry about a bullet taking my life.

 

[Nutri-Wrestler]

yes, it would be, but it wont happen. the only person u have to worry about shooting you is a criminal not an armed citizen.

Ah yes, your a vegetarian im guessing. Tell me, why did we evolve so we can eat meat?

Being a vegetarian would be so incredibly unhealthy

Ross

 

[the nature boy]

so I guess accidental shootings never happen?

 

[BO-CEPHUS]

so I guess accidental shootings never happen?

Of course they do. Just like accidental drownings, car related deaths, stabbings, etc....

So whats your point?

 

[the nature boy]

my point is that he said 'the only person u have to worry about shooting you is a criminal not an armed citizen"

that's why I asked the question.

 

[Dexter]

Walther PPK/S .380 Full Metal Jacket (ugly little suckers) and specially machined.

Six in the magazine, one in the chamber - fantastic safety (always cocked and locked). Classic pistol from the Nazi 38's. Not fancy like Glock or Sig - but freaking accurate and effective.

Comes in .22LR, 32 ACP, 7.62 mm, etc. I like the .380 with FMJ.

If you can't hit the bullseye at 5 meters, best to get another gun. And train and practice. And have steel whatevers, becausing killing someone the first time takes mental discipline.

Dexter

 

[KA-BAR]

Got news for you buddy there will always be guns. Its impossible to get rid of them all and they ban guns it will just make crimminals out of law biding citizens. The crimminals will always find guns so why take them away from the good guys? ??? ehhhh?? come on now!

shame on you guys. guns are designed soley for the purpose of killing humans and little animals. it will be a great day when i can walk the streets of america without having to worry about a bullet taking my life.

 

[KA-BAR]

I agree if you ban guns just go ahead and ban everything! Chrysler, Chevy, ford, DOCTORS, Knives, bats, Tylenol, planes, dogs, snakes, diet coke, Budweiser, Chainsaws, hacksaws, GAS, WAter, Air. hmmmmmmm

If ya wanna get real technical, take all the hand gun related murders in the US and subtract them from toal murders. You will find out that our total murders (stabbing, blunt trauma wounds....) are higher than the TOTAL murder count of most countries. America just has a more violent part in society (go to the projects, if ur white, u wont last long).

If your gonna outlaw guns, might as well outlaw bats and kinives while your at it. Shit, outlaw cars, they kill more people every year then almost anything else.

Ross

 

[Nutri-Wrestler]

Accidental shhotings do happen but are very rare. I would be more scared of getting in a car accident that being shot.

Ross

 

[TxArmyGuy]

As someone who is here to tell this I was robbed at Gunpoint just before i graduated from AIT a buddy and I were robbed by some crackhead. This buddy just came back into the army and is usually packing but where we were at we were not encouraged to leave our weapons in the armory so he left them back home

Had we been robbed for more then 23bucks we both would have risked fighting him. Having a loaded and cocked 38 put to your head is not fun and def makes you wish you were packing.

I hate 110lb crackheads To this day I would enjoy taking his life and watching him squirm to death. This world could stand to lose 1 more piece of shit

Shoot him, fight him, do whatever needs to be done but a piece of shit is still a piece of shit. I would fight and send him to hell Death by some scumbag is not an option.