Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
<!--quoteo(post=1659913:date=Nov 8 2007, 11:19 AM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NeonSpyder @ Nov 8 2007, 11:19 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that limiting gun access to people who actually need them is a bad thing? If everyone has a gun it allows people who would use them easy EASY access to them! Would you prefer the mugger who has you cornered in an alley to have a knife or a gun? Answer honestly now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not a bad thing, it's just the question of exactly how to reverse the situation in the US. Everyone and their grandma has a gun. And then only the law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. And then all the criminals who have guns, which is all of them, still have guns.
There is no "make it difficult for criminals to get guns" because they already have them. What then? The situation, in terms of "making it difficult on criminals" is already f*d.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
I'm not offering any solutions to the "America Problem" I'm just saying what <i>should</i> be done to have a normal functioning society.
You guys are so far in the gun problem hole that I have difficulty seeing a way out for you.
What I'm saying is, "don't do what you've already done the past 200 years, because it was the wrong thing to do"
I'm not offering you a solution <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
AbraWould you kindlyJoin Date: 2003-08-17Member: 19870Members
edited November 2007
I too agree with the "psychopath with gun = less casualties" arguments. I simply can not understand the thought behind needing a gun (or more) in the house.
Here in Denmark nobody has guns, except the police, military and the likes - and maybe the rockers (Hell's Angels, Banditos - the like) had to some extend once.
You rarely hear about gun killings in Denmark. We may be a far smaller country, but I think it carries over. One of my friends was stabbed in the face by another dude carrying a knife. If you are prepared to knife someone in the face, you are prepared to shoot them. I am glad that guy couldn't just have taken the bus home, come back with a gun from his mom or pa'. If he had, my friend wouldn't have had a living chance.
I think you have to have been raised in the spirit of gunmanship to even come close to understanding it. I don't think America will pass a gunlaw anywhere near the likes of my countries kind. Stuff like that sticks.
Good luck, write me if you make it back from school kids.
EDIT: Also, I hope I don't come off as too (lack of word, something with discussion and frenzy).
zig, I agree with you that only law biding citizens will turn their guns in. But couldn't it be the first step, and then getting the guns from the criminals would be the 2nd? Then you wouldn't be in doubt; if he is not a police officer, but carries a gun. Arrest.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1659918:date=Nov 8 2007, 02:39 PM:name=Abra)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Abra @ Nov 8 2007, 02:39 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659918"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->zig, I agree with you that only law biding citizens will turn their guns in. But couldn't it be the first step, and then getting the guns from the criminals would be the 2nd? Then you wouldn't be in doubt; if he is not a police officer, but carries a gun. Arrest.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The difficulty is that if you are not allowed to carry a gun, you will then conceal that gun.
And also I must again go back to the fact that America is soaking in guns. Not just pistols but sub machine guns and even assault rifles (or so I understand). Every layer of the society has guns, in the shops on the streets in the homes. It would take so much concerted effort to effectively remove guns as a problem from America that it would end up being a lot cheaper just to make new guns for everybody who wants one to "protect" themselves from the existing guns.
As an aside:
I would like to point out my general disappointment with today's "Economic" culture. Nobody, NOBODY asks anymore "Can or should we do that?" They ask "Can we afford or is it profitable enough to do that?"
It's not "Can we go to mars?" today.
It's "How much will it cost to go to mars, and are we willing to pay that price?"
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1659922:date=Nov 8 2007, 03:03 PM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NeonSpyder @ Nov 8 2007, 03:03 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659922"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It's not "Can we go to mars?" today.
It's "How much will it cost to go to mars, and are we willing to pay that price?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What bugs me about that is that it's "how much will that cost in $$$" so it doesn't take into account the scientific knowledge and advancement of society. //offtopic
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1659924:date=Nov 8 2007, 03:16 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 8 2007, 03:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659924"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What bugs me about that is that it's "how much will that cost in $$$" so it doesn't take into account the scientific knowledge and advancement of society. //offtopic<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, sorry about that. I'll stay on-topic now.
Okay, so can we think of any civilized countries that have extensive gun ownership laws? Anyone? Oh... yeah well, I guess you can put america in that list if you want to say it's civilized. But I wouldn't recommend it, I've been to the country.
<!--quoteo(post=1659913:date=Nov 8 2007, 02:19 PM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NeonSpyder @ Nov 8 2007, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->In this scenario we find that gun-related deaths are very low because why? Nobody has a gun. Criminals are forced to use weapons that limit their potential lethality as an individual. People will still rob old ladies, but instead of shooting and killing them because the old lady blinked funny and the criminal is high on everything, the criminal instead hits the old lady with a bat, or a stick, or a rock, or something else, giving the old lady good odds to survive. This is true for anyone being robbed, if they are deemed a threat by the criminal and attacked.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What if the queen of England decides she wants to start taxing charging you guys a 90% income tax? What are you gonna do then? throw rocks at her?
you could always throw their tea in the ocean. I hear they don't like that.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1659927:date=Nov 8 2007, 03:35 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Nov 8 2007, 03:35 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659927"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What if the queen of England decides she wants to start taxing charging you guys a 90% income tax? What are you gonna do then? throw rocks at her?
you could always throw their tea in the ocean. I hear they don't like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We'd likely wonder what the queen is doing taxing us, and get back to our hockey. You do realize that we are an autonomous country, separate from the crown, yes? At least, that's what they tell me. My tax money goes to the government, and then it goes from the government back to the people... like a normal functioning country.
If however you are asking what if our government suddenly went nuts and began to impose ridiculous rules on the populace, and was generally acting like a ######? I don't know exactly. Maybe I'll ask european countries what they've been doing the past hundreds of years without guns and do what works for them.
I was mostly just kidding. I know England doesn't really have anything to do with Canada anymore besides the queen's mug being on your money. I don't like guns either, but it really does make you wonder what poor unarmed civilians would do in the face of an oppressive government coming to power. They're used to it in Africa, but lucky for us, it doesn't seem to happen as much in first world countries.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1659933:date=Nov 8 2007, 03:51 PM:name=DiscoZombie)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DiscoZombie @ Nov 8 2007, 03:51 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659933"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was mostly just kidding. I know England doesn't really have anything to do with Canada anymore besides the queen's mug being on your money. I don't like guns either, but it really does make you wonder what poor unarmed civilians would do in the face of an oppressive government coming to power. They're used to it in Africa, but lucky for us, it doesn't seem to happen as much in first world countries.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would bet that other governments would do something. At least, that would be the hope. Of course, even recently the Nazi example has shown us that it's still possible even in the 20th century. I wonder about the 21st.
<!--quoteo(post=1659913:date=Nov 8 2007, 02:19 PM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NeonSpyder @ Nov 8 2007, 02:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659913"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I am from Canada, eh?
But seriously, I'm in the "Guns are bad, get rid of them" boat along with many other people. Principally because I am in agreement with the notion that "Psychos are Psychos, and they will kill regardless if they have guns or not, but a Psycho with a gun can kill a lot more people then a Psycho with a sword, a bow or a heavy stick can." This is common sense to me, and the people I know. From my perspective there are really only two reasonable options that we must eventually employ to avoid catastrophic situations where one psycho with an assault weapon can kill dozens of people:
Everybody has guns scenario:
Psychos inflict less damage because him, along with everyone else in a classroom/office environment also has a weapon and once the psycho initiates his destructive rampage the other people in the office/school shoot him.
Nobody but military/police have guns:
This is the situation in Canada, excepting hunting rifles, nobody has a gun aside from police officers or military personnel. Oh yes, and gang members who smuggle in guns from the United States of <strike>Freedom,</strike> America.
In this scenario we find that gun-related deaths are very low because why? Nobody has a gun. Criminals are forced to use weapons that limit their potential lethality as an individual. People will still rob old ladies, but instead of shooting and killing them because the old lady blinked funny and the criminal is high on everything, the criminal instead hits the old lady with a bat, or a stick, or a rock, or something else, giving the old lady good odds to survive. This is true for anyone being robbed, if they are deemed a threat by the criminal and attacked.
You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that limiting gun access to people who actually need them is a bad thing? If everyone has a gun it allows people who would use them easy EASY access to them! Would you prefer the mugger who has you cornered in an alley to have a knife or a gun? Answer honestly now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but if you have a people without means to defend themselves what happens when the government becomes the enemy? How many governments/republics/dynasty's/dictatorships have people been abused and subdued by their government? If you remove the right to bear arms from everyone except for the government then you're creating a perpetual nightmare. Because when the government becomes corrupt, it already has just not to this extent yet, how do the people take the power back? By holding rallys? Marching? Throwing rocks and molotovs? When people with guns face people without them, we all know who comes out on top.
Oppression is the enemy of every free man. So the Second Amendment was created to protect the free man from tyranny and oppression of the government. Because the founding fathers knew that a time would come when it became too powerful and for it's people to be without arms would mean it's people were defenseless.
Taking guns away is an impossibility, but the government is already trying too with an automatic weapons ban which is beginning to take effect. Like the shop owner I mentioned whose weapons were confiscated and certain fire arms of his were lost in the system.
On a personal note I would just like to say how much I hate small towns/citys as I live in one. Truthfully though, we have rarely any violent crimes committed here in Blackshear, neighboring Waycross, GA. While there may be a few gangs in Waycross who have weapons. There are certainly more firearms inside the locals' houses. No one in my family has ever been robbed, mugged, attacked, raped, beaten or even had property destroyed. Because out here everyone knows their neighbor is strapped. It's a very funny feeling now that I mention it.
NeonSpyder"Das est NTLDR?"Join Date: 2003-07-03Member: 17913Members
<!--quoteo(post=1659948:date=Nov 8 2007, 05:06 PM:name=PerfectionsFlaw)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(PerfectionsFlaw @ Nov 8 2007, 05:06 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659948"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Yes, but if you have a people without means to defend themselves what happens when the government becomes the enemy? How many governments/republics/dynasty's/dictatorships have people been abused and subdued by their government? If you remove the right to bear arms from everyone except for the government then you're creating a perpetual nightmare. Because when the government becomes corrupt, it already has just not to this extent yet, how do the people take the power back? By holding rallys? Marching? Throwing rocks and molotovs? When people with guns face people without them, we all know who comes out on top.
Oppression is the enemy of every free man. So the Second Amendment was created to protect the free man from tyranny and oppression of the government. Because the founding fathers knew that a time would come when it became too powerful and for it's people to be without arms would mean it's people were defenseless.
Taking guns away is an impossibility, but the government is already trying too with an automatic weapons ban which is beginning to take effect. Like the shop owner I mentioned whose weapons were confiscated and certain fire arms of his were lost in the system.
On a personal note I would just like to say how much I hate small towns/citys as I live in one. Truthfully though, we have rarely any violent crimes committed here in Blackshear, neighboring Waycross, GA. While there may be a few gangs in Waycross who have weapons. There are certainly more firearms inside the locals' houses. No one in my family has ever been robbed, mugged, attacked, raped, beaten or even had property destroyed. Because out here everyone knows their neighbor is strapped. It's a very funny feeling now that I mention it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly:
I don't see that the american's right to bear arms has stopped their government from achieving the level of (perceived) corruption that it has today with the politicians and everything else people in american complain about and I can't really see the american people at this time or in the future, forcefully and violently killing their elected officials due to this corruption.
Secondly:
Every citizen in Germany owning a gun would not have stopped Hitler from coming to power or the Nazi regime being established and the subsequent atrocities being committed. The German people had no idea about the majority of atrocities being committed, and in fact many of them actually thought Germany was DEFENDING itself during WW2. Guns in that case, could do nothing for the people against what was essentially a totalitarian goverment.
Thirdly:
I imagine it is possible to have a system of checks and balances that prevents governments with totalitarian power ever coming into existence, if you note, Hitler spent a good deal of time removing those checks and balances from the German parliament and establishing executive powers for himself. The real reason that Hitler and the Nazi's came into existence is because the people let him, and in fact wanted him to have that power to fix the country out of the state it was in at the time.
It's amazing, how society can function when people do not have absolute power and power over a nation is instead spread evenly and intelligently amongst the various branches of government. Most of Europe seems to handle it well enough.
I don't know if that addressed any points, or was more of a rant, but take it as you will <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
<!--quoteo(post=1659930:date=Nov 8 2007, 09:43 PM:name=NeonSpyder)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(NeonSpyder @ Nov 8 2007, 09:43 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659930"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->[...]Maybe I'll ask european countries what they've been doing the past hundreds of years without guns and do what works for them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> THAT'S an easy one... but you won't like the answer. We've spent the last thousand years busily shooting each other in one bloody war after the other. That is, after we got guns. Before that, we sworded and arrowed and speared and maced and axed and hammered and knifed and crossbow-bolted each other instead. Whatever works. But it grows really old after a thousand years, so we're kinda done with that now. THAT WAS A JOKE. HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
Seriously though, most western european countries don't have the same gun culture that the U.S. has. By the time firearms emerged, Europe was comparatively densely populated, with at least a semblance of law and order. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, you have people out on the frontier who very much had to depend on their own ability to defend themselves, or risk getting robbed and/or killed with no-one around to help them. Any change in attitude will come slowly. People who believe that the best way to guarantee personal safety is to have a firearm within reach WILL have firearms, whether legal or not. You can pass legislation once the population largely realises the superfluousness and danger of firearms in civilian life, but not before then.
As for rising up against a corrupt government in arms, that's outdated. A corrupt government will either have the support of the military or not. In the unlikely event that the military sides with the people to overthrow the corrupt government, the people need no guns. The military is handily capable of deposing a government that has no armed forces. In the other scenario, the military sides with the government against the people. I'm just going to appeal to common sense here: If civilians armed with, at best, assault rifles go up against a top-modern, numerous fighting force like the U.S. military, do you think they'll stand the slightest of chances? It won't matter if they're armed with assault rifles or sticks. They don't have the training, they don't have the high-tech gear. They don't have tanks, APCs, artillery or fuel-air explosives. It'd be a very one-sided massacre. Overthrowing a government by force when it has the military's support is impossible in this day and age.
<!--quoteo(post=1659960:date=Nov 8 2007, 05:45 PM:name=lolfighter)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(lolfighter @ Nov 8 2007, 05:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1659960"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As for rising up against a corrupt government in arms, that's outdated. A corrupt government will either have the support of the military or not. In the unlikely event that the military sides with the people to overthrow the corrupt government, the people need no guns. The military is handily capable of deposing a government that has no armed forces. In the other scenario, the military sides with the government against the people. I'm just going to appeal to common sense here: If civilians armed with, at best, assault rifles go up against a top-modern, numerous fighting force like the U.S. military, do you think they'll stand the slightest of chances? It won't matter if they're armed with assault rifles or sticks. They don't have the training, they don't have the high-tech gear. They don't have tanks, APCs, artillery or fuel-air explosives. It'd be a very one-sided massacre. Overthrowing a government by force when it has the military's support is impossible in this day and age.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You left out the scenario which is most popular. The military splits into factions under different command with different objectives. IE a military cou, half side with the people the other half with their leaders. In this case the civis stand a fair chance of helping quite a bit. If you think men without training can't do any damage you forget that Russia drafted thousands of young men with no prior military background and threw them into situations where they had no rifle and were facing superior arms, they survived. The only advantage they had were more numbers. As you would with an uprising. These men with no prior experience in battle held Stalingrad from the German invaders. You think a man needs military training to be proficient in battle? I think all he needs is good head on his shoulders and steady hands. Night vision helps though.
Anyway, we've deviated a bit from the original point. Crazy kid killed eight people, another tragedy.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->These men with no prior experience in battle held Stalingrad from the German invaders.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah true, but these men were still technically part of the Red Army and were commanded by the military. The Soviet Union is a terrible example considering that the state monopolised control of arms early after their seizure of power. The men at Stalingrad only had guns because the government gave let them have them (and lets remember that many of them didn't even have one).
The point here remains that in modern times civilians need military support to achieve anything. There is no example i can recall in any civil war of the 20th century in which guerilla forces unsupported by the military in any way were triumphant, but by all means give me a history lesson <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /> .
FFS ive hell contributed to derailing this topic! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Anyway, yeah a school massacre in Finland, some old story... just in a very unexpected place. I expect it will be forgotten in a couple of weeks.
Remember, people kill people, but guns help people kill people. Humans are always inventing things to make doing things easier... weapons are unfortunately no exception. As for the "America Problem", after clashing with various gunaphiliacs in previous gun topics, ive decided i don't care because i don't live there <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> .
<!--quoteo(post=1660036:date=Nov 9 2007, 10:14 AM:name=wankalot)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(wankalot @ Nov 9 2007, 10:14 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660036"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The point here remains that in modern times civilians need military support to achieve anything. There is no example i can recall in any civil war of the 20th century in which guerilla forces unsupported by the military in any way were triumphant, but by all means give me a history lesson <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /> .<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Maybe Im reading this wrong, but I can think of tons of examples.
Vietnam Almost every time any western country has tried to occupy a middle eastern country (History lesson: Both Russia and Britain tried to occupy Iraq in the past, and failed)
Outright battles of unnarmed forces against a real military would fail in this day and age, but that's the whole idea behind guerilla warfare. Roadside bombs and booby traps are very simple to make, and very effective.
Want to fight gun laws? I'll counter your ###### from my own personal experience.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them without though. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.
And you think gun laws keep criminals from getting guns, buddy of mine has tons of unregistered weapons buried under his house. Their never hard to get when you want one.
Zig...I am Captain Planet!Join Date: 2002-10-23Member: 1576Members
edited November 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1660102:date=Nov 9 2007, 08:09 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Nov 9 2007, 08:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660102"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Want to fight gun laws? I'll counter your ###### from my own personal experience.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yep.
Stuff like that is the reason that I'll own a handgun as soon as I'm of age to do so (21st birthday is this February). Since joining the military, I'm nowhere near as crazy about guns as I used to be.. but as soon as I am a personal gun owner (instead of use it as part of my job), it'll stay that way.
Honestly, if you consider yourself, as a person, a sort of "lawful good" type... then yeah, you really do belong in a country where there are fewer guns, and gun crimes are much less likely than here.
But I don't plan on moving out anytime soon. I love the place. And if some situation arises where I've got to end another person's life, well.. tough noogies for that guy. We only live once, I don't believe in an afterlife, and I sure as hell am not going out like a little ###### because the bad guy is holding my family at gunpoint and I can't do a thing about it.
<!--quoteo(post=1660102:date=Nov 10 2007, 12:09 AM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Nov 10 2007, 12:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660102"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Want to fight gun laws? I'll counter your ###### from my own personal experience.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your anecdote surely outweighs all shootings and other violent acts that could have been prevented by proper gun control. Surely.
Also there is no other way to defend your home other then using a gun.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo(post=1660102:date=Nov 9 2007, 11:09 PM:name=Drfuzzy)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Drfuzzy @ Nov 9 2007, 11:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660102"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Want to fight gun laws? I'll counter your ###### from my own personal experience.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them without though. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.
And you think gun laws keep criminals from getting guns, buddy of mine has tons of unregistered weapons buried under his house. Their never hard to get when you want one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I'm terribly sorry this happened to you but I don't quite understand the situation. You have a loaded gun but it was in your car at time time? Did he have the jump on you or just overpower you?
My question is this, if you had had the gun on your nightstand would you have been able to get it and shoot the attacker before he shot you, or would you have been shot?
<!--quoteo(post=1660252:date=Nov 11 2007, 11:28 PM:name=locallyunscene)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(locallyunscene @ Nov 11 2007, 11:28 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1660252"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm terribly sorry this happened to you but I don't quite understand the situation. You have a loaded gun but it was in your car at time time? Did he have the jump on you or just overpower you?
My question is this, if you had had the gun on your nightstand would you have been able to get it and shoot the attacker before he shot you, or would you have been shot?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> i had a gun with no ammo, cant kill anyone without it and it dont do much vs another gun. Dont really need ammo for the mossberg though, it makes quite a heafy pump sound that even scared me the first time i pumped it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Comments
It's not a bad thing, it's just the question of exactly how to reverse the situation in the US. Everyone and their grandma has a gun. And then only the law-abiding citizens turn in their guns. And then all the criminals who have guns, which is all of them, still have guns.
There is no "make it difficult for criminals to get guns" because they already have them. What then? The situation, in terms of "making it difficult on criminals" is already f*d.
You guys are so far in the gun problem hole that I have difficulty seeing a way out for you.
What I'm saying is, "don't do what you've already done the past 200 years, because it was the wrong thing to do"
I'm not offering you a solution <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
Here in Denmark nobody has guns, except the police, military and the likes - and maybe the rockers (Hell's Angels, Banditos - the like) had to some extend once.
You rarely hear about gun killings in Denmark. We may be a far smaller country, but I think it carries over.
One of my friends was stabbed in the face by another dude carrying a knife. If you are prepared to knife someone in the face, you are prepared to shoot them. I am glad that guy couldn't just have taken the bus home, come back with a gun from his mom or pa'.
If he had, my friend wouldn't have had a living chance.
I think you have to have been raised in the spirit of gunmanship to even come close to understanding it.
I don't think America will pass a gunlaw anywhere near the likes of my countries kind. Stuff like that sticks.
Good luck, write me if you make it back from school kids.
EDIT: Also, I hope I don't come off as too (lack of word, something with discussion and frenzy).
zig, I agree with you that only law biding citizens will turn their guns in. But couldn't it be the first step, and then getting the guns from the criminals would be the 2nd? Then you wouldn't be in doubt; if he is not a police officer, but carries a gun. Arrest.
The difficulty is that if you are not allowed to carry a gun, you will then conceal that gun.
And also I must again go back to the fact that America is soaking in guns. Not just pistols but sub machine guns and even assault rifles (or so I understand). Every layer of the society has guns, in the shops on the streets in the homes. It would take so much concerted effort to effectively remove guns as a problem from America that it would end up being a lot cheaper just to make new guns for everybody who wants one to "protect" themselves from the existing guns.
As an aside:
I would like to point out my general disappointment with today's "Economic" culture. Nobody, NOBODY asks anymore "Can or should we do that?" They ask "Can we afford or is it profitable enough to do that?"
It's not "Can we go to mars?" today.
It's "How much will it cost to go to mars, and are we willing to pay that price?"
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad-fix.gif" />
It's "How much will it cost to go to mars, and are we willing to pay that price?"<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What bugs me about that is that it's "how much will that cost in $$$" so it doesn't take into account the scientific knowledge and advancement of society.
//offtopic
//offtopic<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, sorry about that. I'll stay on-topic now.
Okay, so can we think of any civilized countries that have extensive gun ownership laws? Anyone? Oh... yeah well, I guess you can put america in that list if you want to say it's civilized. But I wouldn't recommend it, I've been to the country.
(homeless people everywhere)
What if the queen of England decides she wants to start taxing charging you guys a 90% income tax? What are you gonna do then? throw rocks at her?
you could always throw their tea in the ocean. I hear they don't like that.
you could always throw their tea in the ocean. I hear they don't like that.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We'd likely wonder what the queen is doing taxing us, and get back to our hockey. You do realize that we are an autonomous country, separate from the crown, yes? At least, that's what they tell me. My tax money goes to the government, and then it goes from the government back to the people... like a normal functioning country.
If however you are asking what if our government suddenly went nuts and began to impose ridiculous rules on the populace, and was generally acting like a ######? I don't know exactly. Maybe I'll ask european countries what they've been doing the past hundreds of years without guns and do what works for them.
Whooooosh!
I would bet that other governments would do something. At least, that would be the hope. Of course, even recently the Nazi example has shown us that it's still possible even in the 20th century. I wonder about the 21st.
But seriously, I'm in the "Guns are bad, get rid of them" boat along with many other people. Principally because I am in agreement with the notion that "Psychos are Psychos, and they will kill regardless if they have guns or not, but a Psycho with a gun can kill a lot more people then a Psycho with a sword, a bow or a heavy stick can." This is common sense to me, and the people I know. From my perspective there are really only two reasonable options that we must eventually employ to avoid catastrophic situations where one psycho with an assault weapon can kill dozens of people:
Everybody has guns scenario:
Psychos inflict less damage because him, along with everyone else in a classroom/office environment also has a weapon and once the psycho initiates his destructive rampage the other people in the office/school shoot him.
Nobody but military/police have guns:
This is the situation in Canada, excepting hunting rifles, nobody has a gun aside from police officers or military personnel. Oh yes, and gang members who smuggle in guns from the United States of <strike>Freedom,</strike> America.
In this scenario we find that gun-related deaths are very low because why? Nobody has a gun. Criminals are forced to use weapons that limit their potential lethality as an individual. People will still rob old ladies, but instead of shooting and killing them because the old lady blinked funny and the criminal is high on everything, the criminal instead hits the old lady with a bat, or a stick, or a rock, or something else, giving the old lady good odds to survive. This is true for anyone being robbed, if they are deemed a threat by the criminal and attacked.
You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that limiting gun access to people who actually need them is a bad thing? If everyone has a gun it allows people who would use them easy EASY access to them! Would you prefer the mugger who has you cornered in an alley to have a knife or a gun? Answer honestly now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, but if you have a people without means to defend themselves what happens when the government becomes the enemy? How many governments/republics/dynasty's/dictatorships have people been abused and subdued by their government? If you remove the right to bear arms from everyone except for the government then you're creating a perpetual nightmare. Because when the government becomes corrupt, it already has just not to this extent yet, how do the people take the power back? By holding rallys? Marching? Throwing rocks and molotovs? When people with guns face people without them, we all know who comes out on top.
Oppression is the enemy of every free man. So the Second Amendment was created to protect the free man from tyranny and oppression of the government. Because the founding fathers knew that a time would come when it became too powerful and for it's people to be without arms would mean it's people were defenseless.
Taking guns away is an impossibility, but the government is already trying too with an automatic weapons ban which is beginning to take effect. Like the shop owner I mentioned whose weapons were confiscated and certain fire arms of his were lost in the system.
On a personal note I would just like to say how much I hate small towns/citys as I live in one. Truthfully though, we have rarely any violent crimes committed here in Blackshear, neighboring Waycross, GA. While there may be a few gangs in Waycross who have weapons. There are certainly more firearms inside the locals' houses. No one in my family has ever been robbed, mugged, attacked, raped, beaten or even had property destroyed. Because out here everyone knows their neighbor is strapped. It's a very funny feeling now that I mention it.
Oppression is the enemy of every free man. So the Second Amendment was created to protect the free man from tyranny and oppression of the government. Because the founding fathers knew that a time would come when it became too powerful and for it's people to be without arms would mean it's people were defenseless.
Taking guns away is an impossibility, but the government is already trying too with an automatic weapons ban which is beginning to take effect. Like the shop owner I mentioned whose weapons were confiscated and certain fire arms of his were lost in the system.
On a personal note I would just like to say how much I hate small towns/citys as I live in one. Truthfully though, we have rarely any violent crimes committed here in Blackshear, neighboring Waycross, GA. While there may be a few gangs in Waycross who have weapons. There are certainly more firearms inside the locals' houses. No one in my family has ever been robbed, mugged, attacked, raped, beaten or even had property destroyed. Because out here everyone knows their neighbor is strapped. It's a very funny feeling now that I mention it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Firstly:
I don't see that the american's right to bear arms has stopped their government from achieving the level of (perceived) corruption that it has today with the politicians and everything else people in american complain about and I can't really see the american people at this time or in the future, forcefully and violently killing their elected officials due to this corruption.
Secondly:
Every citizen in Germany owning a gun would not have stopped Hitler from coming to power or the Nazi regime being established and the subsequent atrocities being committed. The German people had no idea about the majority of atrocities being committed, and in fact many of them actually thought Germany was DEFENDING itself during WW2. Guns in that case, could do nothing for the people against what was essentially a totalitarian goverment.
Thirdly:
I imagine it is possible to have a system of checks and balances that prevents governments with totalitarian power ever coming into existence, if you note, Hitler spent a good deal of time removing those checks and balances from the German parliament and establishing executive powers for himself. The real reason that Hitler and the Nazi's came into existence is because the people let him, and in fact wanted him to have that power to fix the country out of the state it was in at the time.
It's amazing, how society can function when people do not have absolute power and power over a nation is instead spread evenly and intelligently amongst the various branches of government. Most of Europe seems to handle it well enough.
I don't know if that addressed any points, or was more of a rant, but take it as you will <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
THAT'S an easy one... but you won't like the answer. We've spent the last thousand years busily shooting each other in one bloody war after the other. That is, after we got guns. Before that, we sworded and arrowed and speared and maced and axed and hammered and knifed and crossbow-bolted each other instead. Whatever works. But it grows really old after a thousand years, so we're kinda done with that now. THAT WAS A JOKE. HAHA. FAT CHANCE.
Seriously though, most western european countries don't have the same gun culture that the U.S. has. By the time firearms emerged, Europe was comparatively densely populated, with at least a semblance of law and order. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Atlantic, you have people out on the frontier who very much had to depend on their own ability to defend themselves, or risk getting robbed and/or killed with no-one around to help them.
Any change in attitude will come slowly. People who believe that the best way to guarantee personal safety is to have a firearm within reach WILL have firearms, whether legal or not. You can pass legislation once the population largely realises the superfluousness and danger of firearms in civilian life, but not before then.
As for rising up against a corrupt government in arms, that's outdated. A corrupt government will either have the support of the military or not. In the unlikely event that the military sides with the people to overthrow the corrupt government, the people need no guns. The military is handily capable of deposing a government that has no armed forces.
In the other scenario, the military sides with the government against the people. I'm just going to appeal to common sense here: If civilians armed with, at best, assault rifles go up against a top-modern, numerous fighting force like the U.S. military, do you think they'll stand the slightest of chances? It won't matter if they're armed with assault rifles or sticks. They don't have the training, they don't have the high-tech gear. They don't have tanks, APCs, artillery or fuel-air explosives. It'd be a very one-sided massacre. Overthrowing a government by force when it has the military's support is impossible in this day and age.
I thought I was safe by saying "hundreds" rather then thousands, but you got me ;_;
In the other scenario, the military sides with the government against the people. I'm just going to appeal to common sense here: If civilians armed with, at best, assault rifles go up against a top-modern, numerous fighting force like the U.S. military, do you think they'll stand the slightest of chances? It won't matter if they're armed with assault rifles or sticks. They don't have the training, they don't have the high-tech gear. They don't have tanks, APCs, artillery or fuel-air explosives. It'd be a very one-sided massacre. Overthrowing a government by force when it has the military's support is impossible in this day and age.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You left out the scenario which is most popular. The military splits into factions under different command with different objectives. IE a military cou, half side with the people the other half with their leaders. In this case the civis stand a fair chance of helping quite a bit. If you think men without training can't do any damage you forget that Russia drafted thousands of young men with no prior military background and threw them into situations where they had no rifle and were facing superior arms, they survived. The only advantage they had were more numbers. As you would with an uprising. These men with no prior experience in battle held Stalingrad from the German invaders. You think a man needs military training to be proficient in battle? I think all he needs is good head on his shoulders and steady hands. Night vision helps though.
Anyway, we've deviated a bit from the original point. Crazy kid killed eight people, another tragedy.
Yeah true, but these men were still technically part of the Red Army and were commanded by the military. The Soviet Union is a terrible example considering that the state monopolised control of arms early after their seizure of power. The men at Stalingrad only had guns because the government gave let them have them (and lets remember that many of them didn't even have one).
The point here remains that in modern times civilians need military support to achieve anything. There is no example i can recall in any civil war of the 20th century in which guerilla forces unsupported by the military in any way were triumphant, but by all means give me a history lesson <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/nerd-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::nerdy::" border="0" alt="nerd-fix.gif" /> .
FFS ive hell contributed to derailing this topic! <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wow.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":0" border="0" alt="wow.gif" />
Anyway, yeah a school massacre in Finland, some old story... just in a very unexpected place. I expect it will be forgotten in a couple of weeks.
Remember, people kill people, but guns help people kill people. Humans are always inventing things to make doing things easier... weapons are unfortunately no exception. As for the "America Problem", after clashing with various gunaphiliacs in previous gun topics, ive decided i don't care because i don't live there <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" /> .
Maybe Im reading this wrong, but I can think of tons of examples.
Vietnam
Almost every time any western country has tried to occupy a middle eastern country (History lesson: Both Russia and Britain tried to occupy Iraq in the past, and failed)
Outright battles of unnarmed forces against a real military would fail in this day and age, but that's the whole idea behind guerilla warfare. Roadside bombs and booby traps are very simple to make, and very effective.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them without though. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.
And you think gun laws keep criminals from getting guns, buddy of mine has tons of unregistered weapons buried under his house. Their never hard to get when you want one.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yep.
Stuff like that is the reason that I'll own a handgun as soon as I'm of age to do so (21st birthday is this February). Since joining the military, I'm nowhere near as crazy about guns as I used to be.. but as soon as I am a personal gun owner (instead of use it as part of my job), it'll stay that way.
Honestly, if you consider yourself, as a person, a sort of "lawful good" type... then yeah, you really do belong in a country where there are fewer guns, and gun crimes are much less likely than here.
But I don't plan on moving out anytime soon. I love the place. And if some situation arises where I've got to end another person's life, well.. tough noogies for that guy. We only live once, I don't believe in an afterlife, and I sure as hell am not going out like a little ###### because the bad guy is holding my family at gunpoint and I can't do a thing about it.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your anecdote surely outweighs all shootings and other violent acts that could have been prevented by proper gun control. Surely.
Also there is no other way to defend your home other then using a gun.
<a href="http://www.wlky.com/news/14369119/detail.html" target="_blank">This</a> happened to me oct. 13, i would had been able to kill both of them with my yugo SKS had it been loaded like it usually was. I traded it for a mossberg 500 cruiser and i keep it loaded with me all the time. In my car its in the back seat. When i get home, it follows me through the house. Some one sent them, and if they send anyone else i'll kill them without though. It infuriates me that you retards argue about how bad guns are, maybe you should get beaten for 3 hours while your wife is raped in front of you and maybe you would change your mind.
And you think gun laws keep criminals from getting guns, buddy of mine has tons of unregistered weapons buried under his house. Their never hard to get when you want one.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm terribly sorry this happened to you but I don't quite understand the situation. You have a loaded gun but it was in your car at time time? Did he have the jump on you or just overpower you?
My question is this, if you had had the gun on your nightstand would you have been able to get it and shoot the attacker before he shot you, or would you have been shot?
My question is this, if you had had the gun on your nightstand would you have been able to get it and shoot the attacker before he shot you, or would you have been shot?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i had a gun with no ammo, cant kill anyone without it and it dont do much vs another gun. Dont really need ammo for the mossberg though, it makes quite a heafy pump sound that even scared me the first time i pumped it <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />