30 year old DC gun ban lifted. [Archive]

pitabread

February 4th, 2009, 07:44 PM

aesir

February 4th, 2009, 09:55 PM

Cars are way more scary than guns. I'd like to live in a land where cars were banned. Only public transportation is allowed.

spaztastic

February 4th, 2009, 10:17 PM

I believe that it's about damn time they took that stupid restriction off of guns. People wouldn't be scared of them if they knew the slightest thing about them, I.E how to use them. and just to bring this up guns don't go around killing people at random... People do!!! I am all for self defense, be it knife, sword, gun or shark with lazer beams attached to their heads!!! That's what makes America great, the right to defend self and home.

XanaChama

February 4th, 2009, 11:09 PM

That's old news. But I was happy when I heard it. DC's crime is so bad that they've needed to do this for a long time. The fear is ridiculous and I can go into many reasons of why Maryland and DC are closer to a communistic state than anything. For starters, getting a carry permit is extremely difficult in this state (almost nearly impossible unless you are a security guard or have clearance or something). It's a democrat state and if they had their way, guns would be outlawed permanently. But that would be a huge mistake. Things go horribly wrong when your government has too much power and you can't defend your home. I believe in 2nd amendment rights.

but, but...but what happens when all the thugs and hoods in the ghettos of DC get registered handguns??? lol.

c36

I'm not sure if you're serious, but the thugs and criminals already have guns. They get them illegally because guess what? They're criminals! (That's DC's problem in a nutshell...) It is not the weapon that is evil, it is the people who choose to do evil things with them. I feel more protected because we have the ability to defend ourselves and because I'm not naive to believe that just because some gun law is in place, that it will prevent some criminal from getting a gun and breaking into my home.

Though honestly, MD laws are so senseless. I can't do anything to protect myself or my possessions lest I can prove intent. A criminal is allowed to sue you if they shoot you in their home, unless you can prove you were defending yourself. So usually we say: Run to your bedroom and stay in there unless they pursue you... well, that's the only way you could prove intent, so that is probably the best option. But really the government here doesn't want you to shoot anyone. "Guns are scary." :nohope: So? You can do a lot of damage with a knife too and that's a lot of crime there too.

RyerOrdStar

February 4th, 2009, 11:11 PM

How many times do you actually hear about someone using their gun to protect their home? They'll probably get their gun stolen instead.

spaztastic

February 4th, 2009, 11:13 PM

How many times do you actually hear about someone using their gun to protect their home? They'll probably get their gun stolen instead.

Better to have and not need, then to need and not have.

spaztastic

February 4th, 2009, 11:18 PM

You can a lot of damage with a knife too and that's a lot of crime there too.

I personally prefer knives, but I would prefer that the person not even get that close. I would also prefer to reason with them so I wouldn't have to use violence but , worse comes to worse, I will protect my family above all else.

I just think that we should be allowed to protect ourselves/family/property no matter what the *choice of weaponry is.

logical and within reason*
so no tanks or c4 please that's a tad overboard.

XanaChama

February 4th, 2009, 11:22 PM

How many times do you actually hear about someone using their gun to protect their home? They'll probably get their gun stolen instead.

I don't read many pro-gun stories either in the media, do you? It's a huge deterrent, and that's best case scenario (which was the case when I lived in TX). If someone was breaking into my home and I had my handgun out the moment they stepped into the room (and I would, it's next to my bed), I think they would think twice before trying anything else. If anything, the gunshots I fire just to get them out of my home would be enough to alert my neighbors to call 911 while I was dealing with it. I'm not a particularly violent person, but I would rather be protected than second guess myself. It is not something you have time to be comfortable with when confronted with a situation like that.

GhostValkyrie

February 4th, 2009, 11:30 PM

Hasn't DC had one of the highest murder rates in the country for many years (along with Chicago and New York, where firearms are also highly restricted)? Conversely, in areas where civilian ownership of firearms is high, crime tends to be much lower. Most violent crimes in the U.S. are committed with other weapons than guns, in any case.

You can look up the statistics. I've never heard an anti-gun argument that was based on anything but emotion and irrational fear.

You guys know that even Gandhi, the paragon of nonviolence, was strongly against civilian disarmament?

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

-- Gandhi, in his autobiography

Not to mention that violent crimes are on the decline in the US, unlike what the International Association of Chiefs of Police (freedom snatching pigs) would tell you.

1992 Violent Crime Total=1,932,270

2007 Violent Crime total= 1,408,337

1992 Homicide= 23,760

2007 Homicide= 16,929

Our population has increased and yet the total is still down.

There are 2 major methods of measuring crime rates in the USA. There is the National Crime Victimization Survey and the F.B.I. Uniform Crime Reports. These two methods yield different results. See the Bureau of Justice Statistics for more on data collection:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ntmc.htm

Interestingly enough, there's something more dangerous than guns out there. Such as doctors, with a higher percentage and number of people dying from things such as malpractice. More people die from falling. Should we outlaw stairs and rock-climbing, too?

And now for a trip back through time:

1935:
"This year will go down in history.
For the first time a civilised nation has full gun registration.
The street will be safer, the police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future."

-Adolf Hitler

1(Civil War) US creates the first gun control laws to prevent guns from falling into the hands of slaves during the to prevent uprisings.

2The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911, 1914 - 1917 1.5 million Armenians exterminated.

3The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. 1928 - 1953, 60 million Russians are imprisoned, poisoned, forced into servitude and exterminated.

4China. Gun control begins in 1935. Between 1948 - 1952, Totalitarian Zedong exterminates 20 million Chinese citizens.

5Nazi Germany established gun control in 1938, following it's registration acts in 35 - Do I even need to say what happened there?

6Guatemala. Gun control laws enacted 1964: as a result, between 1964 - 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians exterminated.

7Uganda. Began gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 - 1979, 300,000 Christians exterminated.

8Cambodia. Established gun control measures in 1956, 1957 - 1977
1 million Cambodians exterminated.

When I was a child living in Ft. Worth, a man broke into our apartment to steal some goods, and likely with the intent to hurt us seeing as he knew we were home. The man attempted to kill my father, killed our guard dog, and destroyed the items that he failed to escape with. It happened again a few years later. This time, however; my father had a fire arm and gave this criminal the choice to leave. Needless to say he left. We're lucky he never came back for revenge. Personally, I would have forced him to the ground and awaited the police to arrive. Nowadays you can be sued for that. You might cause severe emotional trauma or damage on the poor thug.

So, sure. Let's take guns from the hands of law-abiding citizens. Give the crooks, rapists, and murders a leg up so they have a chance. Ridiculous.

Craig D

February 5th, 2009, 02:31 AM

9 Gun control laws enacted in Canada decades ago.
gunregistry begins in late 1990s (approx)
no massacres so far.

el coro

February 5th, 2009, 02:49 AM

yeah its too dangerous here. im moving to mexico.

c36

GhostValkyrie

February 5th, 2009, 05:16 AM

9 Gun control laws enacted in Canada decades ago.
gunregistry begins in late 1990s (approx)
no massacres so far.

True, and there hasn't been a massacre in several countries. While you're correct in this regard, I was not trying to imply that it will lead to that; there is a greater likelihood for despotism if the arms of law abiding citizens are taken away. Criminals are not going to turn their guns in, and I think many people understand that police brutality and corruption could sky-rocket without the worry of a citizen defending themselves to that extent. (No, not all cops are bad. But there happens to be that X% that just can't help but abuse and betray what they've been trusted with. Same goes for some people in the military, or any position of power for that matter - including politics.)

Citizens have the right to responsibly bear arms and defend themselves from tyranny - whether it be a corrupt politician thousands of miles away, a crooked cop down the street, or a rapist next door.

~Faust~

February 5th, 2009, 05:52 AM

True, and there hasn't been a massacre in several countries. While you're correct in this regard, I was trying to imply that it will lead to that; there is a greater likelihood for despotism if the arms of law abiding citizens are taken away.

Not that I want to take a position or something, but when you are speaking of likelyhood and even more so, something tht _leads_ to something else, you are moving on very thin and populistic ice, since you are using terms from social sciences without even the slightest proper statistic method.

If you want to imply that there's a connection between firearms-laws and despotism you'd have to bring up much more cases than the ones you mentioned, depending on a prior calculation of the statistical power within your data. To be on the save side, I'd suggest keeping the N in three digits, although there's some disciplines like developmental linguistics and certain branches of sociology where the correlation is obstructed with 10 or even less cases. No need to mention that those are having miraculous breakthrough discoveries on a monthly basis :P

Anyways, it's possible to make statistical claims with fewer subjects, which takes us to your second part of the "prrof", causality. Statistically speaking, you can only speak of causal relationships in a controlled experimental setting. Since this is definately not possible here, your claim is invalid.

As are all of your claims to be speaking of facts. they are just opinion, at least as long as you are wavering in the waters of sociology.

GhostValkyrie

February 5th, 2009, 07:39 AM

Not that I want to take a position or something, but when you are speaking of likelyhood and even more so, something tht _leads_ to something else, you are moving on very thin and populistic ice, since you are using terms from social sciences without even the slightest proper statistic method.

If you want to imply that there's a connection between firearms-laws and despotism you'd have to bring up much more cases than the ones you mentioned, depending on a prior calculation of the statistical power within your data. To be on the save side, I'd suggest keeping the N in three digits, although there's some disciplines like developmental linguistics and certain branches of sociology where the correlation is obstructed with 10 or even less cases. No need to mention that those are having miraculous breakthrough discoveries on a monthly basis :P

Anyways, it's possible to make statistical claims with fewer subjects, which takes us to your second part of the "prrof", causality. Statistically speaking, you can only speak of causal relationships in a controlled experimental setting. Since this is definately not possible here, your claim is invalid.

As are all of your claims to be speaking of facts. they are just opinion, at least as long as you are wavering in the waters of sociology.

I apologize. I'm afraid we both made a mistake. I wasn't paying enough attention to my own text. I meant to type "was not", not was. I read your post before the quote and was struck as to where you felt that it was strictly developed on opinions. The rise of despotism isn't merely because guns are controlled, I agree to that. Usually despots rise and convince people to do so. It doesn't mean this is always the case, but it has happened several times. Thanks for highlighting that section. I'll be fixing it shortly.

Mr.Delicious

February 5th, 2009, 09:06 AM

hummm, I dont see nothin wrong with that. All the would be gang members and people who plan on killin people arent gonna be carrying around registered weapons anyways.

Aly Fell

February 5th, 2009, 09:51 AM

"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest."

-- Gandhi, in his autobiography

Sorry but this is taken out of context. Gandhi was refering to military weapons not personally held firearms, and the refusal of the British to conscript Indians into the army.

Vehkt

February 5th, 2009, 10:44 AM

Not knowing a great deal about America, i'd have thought DC to be one of the more safer states? Due to the whole "White House, Congress yata yata" being there.

GhostValkyrie

February 5th, 2009, 11:00 AM

Not knowing a great deal about America, i'd have thought DC to be one of the more safer states? Due to the whole "White House, Congress yata yata" being there.

The streets are almost as corrupt as the politics.

tobbA

February 5th, 2009, 11:11 AM

Not knowing a great deal about America, i'd have thought DC to be one of the more safer states? Due to the whole "White House, Congress yata yata" being there.

Seriously? You're talking about a state full of snipers with itchy fingers waiting on every rooftop. If you live there and look the slightest bit like the president you're out for a rough ride... ;P

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 11:30 AM

GhostValkyrie

February 5th, 2009, 12:09 PM

Seriously? You're talking about a state full of snipers with itchy fingers waiting on every rooftop. If you live there and look the slightest bit like the president you're out for a rough ride... ;P

Oh, c'mon. His car is safer than the bat-mobile, he's guarded by several secret service agents, marines, and spec-ops retirees. Not to mention he's got the football at arm's length away, and the motorcade is block long black void of armor plating and bullet-proof glass. He's in more personal danger doing interviews than rolling around DC.

tobbA

February 5th, 2009, 12:56 PM

Well uh.. i was only trying to be funny. Looks like i failed. So uh... yay :P

Molly

February 5th, 2009, 01:01 PM

Better to have and not need, then to need and not have.

especially when zombies attack...

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 01:04 PM

especially when zombies attack...

DAMN FRICKEN RIGHT!!! Sneaky little bastards those zombies are. you can never be too prepared for Z-day!!! :D

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 01:06 PM

Well uh.. i was only trying to be funny. Looks like i failed. So uh... yay :P

well personally i got confused by your first post saying you would be the loudest one protesting the lift of gun bans, I could only guess that you were being serious through sarcasm. :P

Dan!

February 5th, 2009, 01:29 PM

How many times do you actually hear about someone using their gun to protect their home? They'll probably get their gun stolen instead.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/2009_01_01_archive.html

If anyone enters my house without my consent, I will assume they mean to do harm. I will take action to defend my family in the most effective way possible. I will not risk the lives of my children or other loved ones and assume that this/these person(s) would attempt to negotiate the terms of leaving my house peacefully. I will not assume a higher power or some other entity will protect me. They will be warned - then I will use force.

Additionally I can not think of a more dangerous position than if the only persons allowed to carry weapons worked for the government or military.

ArtZealot

February 5th, 2009, 01:39 PM

yeah its too dangerous here. im moving to mexico.

c36

screw that, im headed to Antarctica.

Robert.B

February 5th, 2009, 02:48 PM

I cant till we all get our own pip boys ^_^ and v.a.t.s

Nam

February 5th, 2009, 03:19 PM

Chris Rock: "Everybody is talking about gun control. Got to control the guns. Fuck, that, I like guns. If you've got a gun, you don't need to work out! Cause, I ain't working out. I ain't jogging. No, I think we need some bullet control. I think every bullet should cost five thousand dollars. Five thousand dollars for a bullet. Know why? Cos if a bullet cost five thousand dollars, there'd be no more innocent by-standers. That'd be it. Some guy'd be shot you'd be all 'Damn, he must've done something, he's got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass!' And people'd think before they shot someone 'Man I will blow your fucking head off, if I could afford it. I'm gonna get me a second job, start saving up, and you a dead man. You'd better hope I don't get no bullets on lay-away!' And even if you get shot you wouldn't need to go to the emergency room. Whoever shot you'd take their bullet back. 'I believe you got my property?'"

pitabread

February 5th, 2009, 07:10 PM

People wouldn't be scared of them if they knew the slightest thing about them, I.E how to use them.

That's what scares me: that people have guns and know how to use them.

pitabread

February 5th, 2009, 07:13 PM

I don't read many pro-gun stories either in the media, do you? It's a huge deterrent, and that's best case scenario (which was the case when I lived in TX). If someone was breaking into my home and I had my handgun out the moment they stepped into the room (and I would, it's next to my bed), I think they would think twice before trying anything else. If anything, the gunshots I fire just to get them out of my home would be enough to alert my neighbors to call 911 while I was dealing with it. I'm not a particularly violent person, but I would rather be protected than second guess myself. It is not something you have time to be comfortable with when confronted with a situation like that.

Dogs make a much better deterrent.. And I speak from experience of having my home not broken into thanks to my roommate's dogs. My neighbor on the other hand was not so lucky.

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 08:29 PM

That's what scares me: that people have guns and know how to use them.

You didn't grow up in a house with guns did you???
it's people who don't know how to use guns that scare me, you know why, cause their the ones trying the hardest to get them banned!!!

pitabread

February 5th, 2009, 08:41 PM

You didn't grow up in a house with guns did you???

No, but for the record I shot a rifle when I was 12 or 13.

it's people who don't know how to use guns that scare me, you know why, cause their the ones trying the hardest to get them banned!!!

I'm far less afraid of the people without guns than the people with them.

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 08:52 PM

No, but for the record I shot a rifle when I was 12 or 13.

hehehehe well at least you shot it once right?

I'm far less afraid of the people without guns than the people with them.
That's because you don't have a gun or other weapon to defend yourself with.
I have already stated that I prefer steel blades to guns, I handle them better and basically I think they are more fun, especially combat knives oooo yes combat knives * starts to fantasize about Rambo...military men in training...mmmmm*... ahem anyway I would never vote to have some ones right to bear arms taken from them, criminals are going to get weapons any way they can, hence why they are criminals, it won't be legally so the bans only hurt law abiding citizens! if you really are that worried then vote to have training classes given before you can own a weapon, that way they get trained properly and don't shoot their eye out.

Heck I think we should put more restrictions on people getting drivers license than on guns, cars are far more dangerous and almost every family has 4. so do what the Germans do charge 2000 dollars and 6 mo of training before you can get a drivers license *note I mean this only for cars thank you very much* Do you realize how many people die from car accidents each year? it far out weighs any deaths caused by guns in the US.

pitabread

February 5th, 2009, 09:06 PM

That's because you don't have a gun or other weapon to defend yourself with.

Honestly, I'm being a bit facetious about the whole "scared" thing. Truth is, I live somewhere very safe. The average murder rate in my city is about a third compared to the US national average.

I have never felt the "need" to own a weapon for protection in my life (all 30 years of it so far). Quite frankly, the very concept of that is mystifying to me. It says something quite strongly to me about American culture. Or at least a subset of it.

Besides, who says I don't have a weapon? Like every Canadian worth their salt, I have an attack beaver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpj1zgyfScM). So there. :P

Do you realize how many people die from car accidents each year? it far out weighs any deaths caused by guns in the US.

That's a spurious claim.

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 09:30 PM

Besides, who says I don't have a weapon? Like every Canadian worth their salt, I have an attack beaver. So there.
Damn I want one too... Guess I need to move to Canada now. :P
That's a spurious claim.
Look up the number of deaths from car accidents in any of the major US cities, they will be larger than deaths by guns. Heck in KY our two largest killers are heart disease and car accidents. So no it's not spurious, it's factual. I am not statistician so I won't even go there, less I make myself more of an ass than needed :P

tobbA

February 5th, 2009, 09:58 PM

Look up the number of deaths from car accidents in any of the major US cities, they will be larger than deaths by guns. Heck in KY our two largest killers are heart disease and car accidents. So no it's not spurious, it's factual. I am not statistician so I won't even go there, less I make myself more of an ass than needed :P

Difference being that cars are actually good for something? (Though, I guess we'd do better without them. Like you say. Lots of people die in car crashes and the ozon layer is packing its bags to leave at the moment...)

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 10:00 PM

exactly! either way it's retarded to get rid of something that people use, or can use when necessary.
and guns are good for hunting, squirrels are to fast and small to try and Rambo their fury little asses :D

spaztastic

February 5th, 2009, 10:01 PM

HA i get your humor this time :P tobbA

daestwen

February 5th, 2009, 10:22 PM

to be honest, being canadian, i never understood this issue. But then again, we never had a clause in our constitution saying we could own them. It's assumed to be a privilege, rather than a right. We still have gun crime, sure, but our statistics compared to the state by population are ridiculously low. Toronto, where i live, is often toted by the canadian media as being a dangerous place due to gun crime, except that it actually came up as number 22 on dangerous cities in canada by population... well after Regina. :P

There's really no reason to own a hand gun except to shoot people with, and all of our illegal/unregistered weapons come from the states, so i just WISH you guys would ban them already so they stop getting smuggled up here. :P

pitabread

February 5th, 2009, 10:24 PM

Look up the number of deaths from car accidents in any of the major US cities, they will be larger than deaths by guns. Heck in KY our two largest killers are heart disease and car accidents. So no it's not spurious, it's factual. I am not statistician so I won't even go there, less I make myself more of an ass than needed :P

Oops, poor use of words on my part. Perhaps "irrelevant" would have been better.

I mean, really, there are so many things wrong with comparing car deaths and gun deaths, do I really have to start listing them?

pitabread

February 5th, 2009, 10:29 PM

to be honest, being canadian, i never understood this issue. But then again, we never had a clause in our constitution saying we could own them.

Of course, we also never had a violent revolution nor a civil war. Hmmm...

But on the subject of Canada, one thing which cheeses me off are our ridiculous gun laws. For example, non-dangerous replica firearms are illegal. Completely outlawed. Yet people can still buy real guns or even BB guns that look like guns. Bizarre.

Costau D

February 5th, 2009, 10:35 PM

-ggyypk37JI

r.mccabe

February 5th, 2009, 11:19 PM

Of course, we also never had a violent revolution nor a civil war. Hmmm...

But on the subject of Canada, one thing which cheeses me off are our ridiculous gun laws. For example, non-dangerous replica firearms are illegal. Completely outlawed. Yet people can still buy real guns or even BB guns that look like guns. Bizarre.

Its so some kid with a water gun doesn't get hurt.

Mark Bot

February 5th, 2009, 11:55 PM

XanaChama

February 6th, 2009, 12:22 AM

Dogs make a much better deterrent.. And I speak from experience of having my home not broken into thanks to my roommate's dogs. My neighbor on the other hand was not so lucky.

That would be better I suppose if I had a yard and could actually own a dog that is larger than a chihuahua. But seriously, coming from the city though, having dogs (and very well trained ones--we're a vet family) never stopped someone from jumping into my backyard when running from the police (helicopters and everything). It didn't stop them from trying to run into my home.

There was another man years later who was running from the police as well (happened a lot in that neighborhood) who hid in my neighbor's yard who did have a dog. He hid there in the dark for about an hour until the helicopters went away. At first they couldn't find him and the whole time the dog didn't so much as bark or care which was visible to us since my family is nosey and he had a clear fence. The police officers still searching on foot were running their flashlights back in the yard thinking he might be possibly there. Of course the dog is barking at the police officers and not going anywhere near the guy inside. They did eventually go in and check and found him. My neighbor was staring at the dog shaking his head trying to figure out why the heck he didn't bark or do anything about the guy hiding there.

Look, I'm not trying to convince everyone to buy a gun or be pro-gun, I just think banning them and leaving people defenseless would be wrong. I can understand the fear and paranoia, but seriously. Saying "well I don't see why you should have guns, so it really shouldn't be necessary..." isn't a valid argument to ban them. And the U.S. is not like other countries out there, so saying "Well my country does this" doesn't really prove anything either. I agree to disagree on this topic. Though that doesn't mean I wouldn't opt for other forms of protection, I'm not that pro-gun that I feel they should be everywhere at every place. Though that's basically how my hometown has changed things to be... apparently you can carry without a permit into stores now which does and doesn't sound good to me (because of the amount of gas station robberies, etc)... go figure.

Edit: And just to throw in my final comments and then I've said enough: Second amendment rights are what our nation is built on. The whole point was that if the government became too corrupt, you had some ability to defend your rights and keep the government from trying to take them away (i.e. forced martial law, etc). If you take that away, you're basically taking away our rights. At least to me, it's that simple. Things have advanced since then to the point they could probably nuke me for all I care, but I would still rather keep my my right.

GhostValkyrie

February 6th, 2009, 12:35 AM

How many times do you actually hear about someone using their gun to protect their home? They'll probably get their gun stolen instead.

Usually when a "poor, defenseless" piece of shit illegally enters into some dastardly, gun-toting, citizens home and the owner chooses to protect themselves and their loved ones. If the bastard survives, it proceeds to a court case and the home owner is castigated nationally as some violent red-neck. That's usually when you hear about people defending their homes.

There's really no reason to own a hand gun except to shoot people with, and all of our illegal/unregistered weapons come from the states, so i just WISH you guys would ban them already so they stop getting smuggled up here. :P

Sure, yeah. Totally. It's not like people still bomb buildings or rape innocent women walking down the street. After all; It's illegal and obvious everyone follows the law.

XanaChama

February 6th, 2009, 12:49 AM

Usually when a "poor, defenseless" piece of shit illegally enters into some dastardly, gun-toting, citizens home and the owner chooses to protect themselves and their loved ones. If the bastard survives, it proceeds to a court case and the home owner is castigated nationally as some violent red-neck. That's usually when you hear about people defending their homes.

Sure, yeah. Totally. It's not like people still bomb buildings or rape innocent women walking down the street. After all; It's illegal and obvious everyone follows the law.

GhostValkyrie, I find it all extremely ironic that you're talking about all this while living in Japan. My friend from Osaka went shooting with us when he came to visit last year. He seemed interested and we thought it would be kind of cool for him since there's no way that'd fly back home.

GhostValkyrie

February 6th, 2009, 12:56 AM

GhostValkyrie, I find it all extremely ironic that you're talking about all this while living in Japan. My friend from Osaka went shooting with us when he came to visit last year. He seemed interested and we thought it would be kind of cool for him since there's no way that'd fly back home.

I find it ironic it ironic the MSM went berserk when some bozo went nuts in Tokyo - stabbing several people and then killing himself, but was completely quiet when a man somehow obtained a shotgun and killed several people at the the public swimming pool that my wife frequents with my son in Dec. 2007. Luckily; my wife and child were not there when this happened. Imagine if someone could have been able to defend themselves, or the others there, and unload on that man before he murdered one of my friends. A pre-school teacher who absolutely loved giving to others, especially innocent children.

SARCASM ALERT>>>>It's apparent that only societies where law abiding citizens retain the rights to bear arms have a problem with violence at the hands of fire arms.<<<<SARCASM ALERT

EDIT: Many Japanese people have a strange fascination with guns that parallels, and in some cases eclipses, this supposed western weapon 'idolization'. They have the best replica BB gun I have ever seen. In America these guns are usually required to have an orange striping on the tip for identification, that is not so in Japan. It's funny people always point to America, proclaiming we worship guns. Try looking at Syria, where men and women march through the streets firing AKs into the air while screaming America is great satan, or death to the infidel.

Oden

February 6th, 2009, 01:01 AM

It's apparent that only societies where law abiding citizens retain the rights to bear arms have a problem with violence at the hands of fire arms.

Interesting reversal of position...I think your brain subconsciously disagrees with you. :P

GhostValkyrie

February 6th, 2009, 01:04 AM

Interesting reversal of position...I think your brain subconsciously disagrees with you. :P

Sarcasm, my dear friend. Sarcasm. :)

Oden

February 6th, 2009, 01:15 AM

Sarcasm, my dear friend. Sarcasm. :)

ah shite, it seems more obvious now, sorry about that.

My apologies for doubting your brain's solidarity with your position. ;)

GhostValkyrie

February 6th, 2009, 01:43 AM

ah shite, it seems more obvious now, sorry about that.

My apologies for doubting your brain's solidarity with your position. ;)

No problem, man. :)

Dimension

February 6th, 2009, 01:49 AM

I have already stated that I prefer steel blades to guns

Yeah, I know what you mean, though I prefer numbchucks and bowstaffs. Anyway, I'm off to go hunt wolverines with my cousin and draw some Lygers.

daestwen

February 6th, 2009, 02:08 AM

Sure, yeah. Totally. It's not like people still bomb buildings or rape innocent women walking down the street. After all; It's illegal and obvious everyone follows the law.

Not *really* sure how this was a rebuttal, since i thought my :P made my sarcasm fairly clear? No matter what, illegal guns are a problem. But if i don't agree with officers carrying them, why would i agree with citizens carrying them...?

GhostValkyrie

February 6th, 2009, 02:19 AM

Not *really* sure how this was a rebuttal, since i thought my :P made my sarcasm fairly clear? No matter what, illegal guns are a problem. But if i don't agree with officers carrying them, why would i agree with citizens carrying them...?

I guess I should start adding those to the end of my sarcasm.

I'm sorry that illegal weapons are smuggled into your country and harm innocent lives. Perhaps your country should have tighter border control with the US, I wouldn't mind.

Peter Coene

February 6th, 2009, 02:20 AM

EDIT: Many Japanese people have a strange fascination with guns that parallels, and in some cases eclipses, this supposed western weapon 'idolization'. They have the best replica BB gun I have ever seen. In America these guns are usually required to have an orange striping on the tip for identification, that is not so in Japan.
Actually, the lack of orange tips on airsoft guns in Japan is possible because Japan doesn't allow real guns. If the officials there see a kid running around chasing his friends with what looks like a mac10 or mp5 they can easily assume its fake. Here, because cops have to deal with guns more often, the orange tip is required to let the officer know its fake.

Yeah, I know what you mean, though I prefer numbchucks and bowstaffs. Anyway, I'm off to go hunt wolverines with my cousin and draw some Lygers.
Don't bash blades too much. Knives can be carried legally in most cities without causing too much suspicion, they require less maintenance, and can double as a tool. In the time it takes an average person to draw a pistol, release the safety, chamber a round, and fire an average person with a knife can unsheathe it, close the 10 yards between them, and stab them, perhaps multiple times. Using a knife offensively does not require a lot of training (pointy end goes where?) and if you are close enough to touch a person then the gun is actually less handy to have.

Dimension

February 6th, 2009, 03:46 AM

Don't bash blades too much. Knives can be carried legally in most cities without causing too much suspicion, they require less maintenance, and can double as a tool. In the time it takes an average person to draw a pistol, release the safety, chamber a round, and fire an average person with a knife can unsheathe it, close the 10 yards between them, and stab them, perhaps multiple times. Using a knife offensively does not require a lot of training (pointy end goes where?) and if you are close enough to touch a person then the gun is actually less handy to have.

I'm sorry, but you made me think of Dwight Schrute. My post earlier was a Napoleon Dynamite reference.

You guys and your weapons...

Seriously, it's probably more dangerous to eat a doughnut, drive a car, eat raw fish, drink alcohol, or smoke than to not own a firearm for protection.

In terms of protection from your government I think it should be looked at on a case by case basis. I'm not scared that Stephen Harper or Obama is going to start rounding up minorities and sending them to concentration camps.
Canada and the US aren't Russia and Germany during the early 20th century. Though those are good examples of what can happen I can't see that happening here currently.

Vehkt

February 6th, 2009, 09:35 AM

I heard that on the population:murder ratio, Japan was quite low in the swing of things. Which is meant to be surprising due to the fact they say Japan doesn't really taboo much in the way of violence on TV etc.

Course, as with many articles and not being there, i'll take it with a pinch of salt.

tobbA

February 6th, 2009, 09:56 AM

I've heard that Japan is really low on crimes and murders, but really high on suicides... US is really low on suicides but have a lot of crime and murders...

Jason Rainville

February 6th, 2009, 10:15 AM

I've heard that Japan is really low on crimes and murders, but really high on suicides... US is really low on suicides but have a lot of crime and murders...

It all just depends how you unwind after a hard day. Different strokes I say :)

s.ketch

February 6th, 2009, 11:21 AM

I've heard that Japan is really low on crimes and murders, but really high on suicides... US is really low on suicides but have a lot of crime and murders...

There was a study done by a sociologist, cant remember his name, but he found that there are more suicides in very population dense areas as opposed to rural areas. Can't really say why because that would fall under psychology, but theres a relationship there none the less.

s.ketch

February 6th, 2009, 11:31 AM

Don't bash blades too much. Knives can be carried legally in most cities without causing too much suspicion, they require less maintenance, and can double as a tool. In the time it takes an average person to draw a pistol, release the safety, chamber a round, and fire an average person with a knife can unsheathe it, close the 10 yards between them, and stab them, perhaps multiple times. Using a knife offensively does not require a lot of training (pointy end goes where?) and if you are close enough to touch a person then the gun is actually less handy to have.

I think there are more rules about knives than you think. In my state if you carry a knife it can not be fixed blade nor be over three inches long. Of course if someone is carrying it inside of a coat or on their ankle no one will probably see it.

It doesn't take that long to cock a gun. More than likely anyone who carries a gun around waiting for something to pop-off they are going to have it loaded already anyways. On a 1911A1 a person can release the safety as the weapon is drawn or even after its draw as the safety switch is located right by the thumb, very accessible and quick to remove. By the time you get to yard 0, you're going to have an exit wound the size of a grapefruit.

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 11:33 AM

Guns i understand. It's the knife fetishes that i think are bonkers. Not only is a knife an ineffective way to stop someone it's also a very effective way to get yourself a felony. You're much better off with pepperspray, you can completely incapacitate someone and walk away, and even if you discharge it on someone by accident that's still only a misdemeanor. If you stab someone with a knife they can still kick your ass UNLESS YOU KILL THEM. If you stab someone with a knife on accident that's a felony.

Get some pepper spray. Leave the knives in the kitchen. Where they belong.

CUASE RAMBO'S FRICKEN AWESOME!!!!! if you didn't catch that most of my statements about knives are dripping with sarcasm I apologize...
I like knives cause they are easier for ME to conceal and I have had more training with them than guns so I feel more comfortable with them. that's just me, I still plan on getting a conceal and carry here soon, but I need to really sharpen my eye, cause right now the ground is as close to the target as I normally get. :P
meh pepper spray is only good if you have police grade mace, the other stuff is high grade table pepper. You would probably have more luck throwing cracked pepper at them than spraying common pepper spray. Now if you really want to incapacitate some one use police grade FOX mace, that shit is mean!!!

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 11:39 AM

Yeah, I know what you mean, though I prefer numbchucks and bowstaffs. Anyway, I'm off to go hunt wolverines with my cousin and draw some Lygers.

Fricken AWESOME... Plain awesome is what a lyger is. I don't like nunchucks ...eye hand coordination is not what it used to be. Staffs are cool, I used to know so many forms with them. I love them, then my 15 footer went missing *sniff sniff* best staff ever.

EDI: I got the Napoleon reference when I got to lyger... GOSH!!!! best movie eva!!!

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 11:45 AM

I think there are more rules about knives than you think. In my state if you carry a knife it can not be fixed blade nor be over three inches long. Of course if someone is carrying it inside of a coat or on their ankle no one will probably see it.

It doesn't take that long to cock a gun. More than likely anyone who carries a gun around waiting for something to pop-off they are going to have it loaded already anyways. On a 1911A1 a person can release the safety as the weapon is drawn or even after its draw as the safety switch is located right by the thumb, very accessible and quick to remove. By the time you get to yard 0, you're going to have an exit wound the size of a grapefruit.

1911 have to have one of the best designs for a gun, they are user friendly but have so many safety's at the same time. I know where you live if they have those restrictions on blades, I used to live there myself. Frazier park and then Taft, Bako. If you know what state I am referring to you should know the geography some what, but they are tight on everything, it''s stupid it really is. Not to mention they tout some of the WORST drivers in the US after KY.

Peter Coene

February 6th, 2009, 12:02 PM

I'm sorry, but you made me think of Dwight Schrute. My post earlier was a Napoleon Dynamite reference.
I'm fine with that, I guess. Dwight is a characature of the type of folks I often sort of agree with in terms of ideals.

The way that he implements those ideals and his personality are a different matter.

You guys and your weapons...

Seriously, it's probably more dangerous to eat a doughnut, drive a car, eat raw fish, drink alcohol, or smoke than to not own a firearm for protection.

In terms of protection from your government I think it should be looked at on a case by case basis. I'm not scared that Stephen Harper or Obama is going to start rounding up minorities and sending them to concentration camps.
Canada and the US aren't Russia and Germany during the early 20th century. Though those are good examples of what can happen I can't see that happening here currently.
I'm willing to believe that the reason you don't see that happening is because having guns for so long has made us a country where tyrants can't easilly gain a foothold. Guns have made us what we are today.

Other countries to rely on a presence from outside if they want to avoid tyranny. This comes in the form of the US, UN, or in the past NATO. In other words they submit themselves to a loose form of outside rule to avoid tyranny in their ruling of themselves. And what is that outside rule but another form of tyranny? It might be a benevolent dictatorship, but still not what I see as the greatest choice.

DanielC

February 6th, 2009, 12:17 PM

Q95kX_EP2Nk

Peur quand tu nous tiens....

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 01:25 PM

Q95kX_EP2Nk

Peur quand tu nous tiens....

Same thing could be said about the 150,000,000.00 that Obama spent on his crowning... I mean inauguration. Green my ass.

jadefoodog

February 6th, 2009, 01:53 PM

Actually, the lack of orange tips on airsoft guns in Japan is possible because Japan doesn't allow real guns. If the officials there see a kid running around chasing his friends with what looks like a mac10 or mp5 they can easily assume its fake. Here, because cops have to deal with guns more often, the orange tip is required to let the officer know its fake.

Don't bash blades too much. Knives can be carried legally in most cities without causing too much suspicion, they require less maintenance, and can double as a tool. In the time it takes an average person to draw a pistol, release the safety, chamber a round, and fire an average person with a knife can unsheathe it, close the 10 yards between them, and stab them, perhaps multiple times. Using a knife offensively does not require a lot of training (pointy end goes where?) and if you are close enough to touch a person then the gun is actually less handy to have.

most people who carry keep a round chambered and you can disarm the saftey as your drawing it so its prettymuch ready as quick as you can get it out

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 02:00 PM

most people who carry keep a round chambered and you can disarm the saftey as your drawing it so its prettymuch ready as quick as you can get it out

But what if they are up against Jet Lei? it wouldn't matter if they had pulled the trigger, cause they'd be dead 1 sec later, after he dodged the bullet :D

DanielC

February 6th, 2009, 03:26 PM

Same thing could be said about the 150,000,000.00 that Obama spent on his crowning... I mean inauguration. Green my ass.

...... hahahahahaha, thanks, i laughed well.

Craig D

February 6th, 2009, 03:35 PM

I used to wonder how someone could wrack up almost 800 posts in a couple months. Now I know.

evildisco

February 6th, 2009, 04:04 PM

That is definitely a more interesting topic, Craig.

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 04:44 PM

...... hahahahahaha, thanks, i laughed well.

well at least it made you happy. The truth is funny isn't it. :P

I used to wonder how someone could wrack up almost 800 posts in a couple months. Now I know.

Ha I don't have 800 posts yet, I am only at 728 so I have 72 to go. I happen to have an addiction to this site, it's a very serious problem :O

s.ketch

February 6th, 2009, 04:52 PM

Post counts don't matter anymore, its all about the Thanks.

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 04:54 PM

see then I am no where near 800 then :P

r.mccabe

February 6th, 2009, 06:12 PM

I usually go with green or chia. I should try some of the better stuff though. I'm always buying the generic stuff. Red rose is still good.

Wait wrong thread....hmmmmm.

DanielC

February 6th, 2009, 06:24 PM

Hey spaz, and fellows pro-killing, i made a little portrait for you.
585696
I wish i had more time on my hands for it, but that's how far i could go.
Please keep throwing out your arguments, and in the meantime, could you go find a soul ? :)
Thank you, and God bless !

pitabread

February 6th, 2009, 06:35 PM

I find it ironic it ironic the MSM went berserk when some bozo went nuts in Tokyo - stabbing several people and then killing himself, but was completely quiet when a man somehow obtained a shotgun and killed several people at the the public swimming pool that my wife frequents with my son in Dec. 2007. Luckily; my wife and child were not there when this happened. Imagine if someone could have been able to defend themselves, or the others there, and unload on that man before he murdered one of my friends. A pre-school teacher who absolutely loved giving to others, especially innocent children.

I'm sorry for what happened to your friend.

That said, for every isolated scenario where someone could potentially have been stopped by someone with a gun, there are likely many more people who haven't died from gun deaths because of the restriction of firearms in Japan.

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 06:35 PM

mmm please don't preach to me about killing when Obama is pro-abortion I am almost positive no one wants to get me started on that!
and GUNS don't KILL people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!

pitabread

February 6th, 2009, 06:37 PM

and GUNS don't KILL people. PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE!!!

Guns make it easier, though.

evildisco

February 6th, 2009, 06:37 PM

Spaz: I'm positive we don't want any more posts from you that's the point that is most pressing right now. At least, not any posts that don't include actual drawing or painting.

DanielC

February 6th, 2009, 06:38 PM

Im not talking about guns ...

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 06:41 PM

Im not talking about guns ...

DanielC Then to what are you referring? just because I am pro 2nd amendment doesn't make me pro-death.

and Evil it's a free country here still so bite me. :D

evildisco

February 6th, 2009, 06:46 PM

Not the internet forum is not, just ask Santa Elwell.

s.ketch

February 6th, 2009, 06:47 PM

Don't be lured into thinking pro-gun = pro-killing. I will do all within my power to never take a human life. However, the next time someone kicks my door in, as they have done in the past, I will shoot a limb off with no hesitation. Knowing that someone uninvited came into your home is a pretty bad feeling. There is no more easy sleeping or relaxing.

Everyday I have to put up my video games and computer in a secure place. Everyday I have to wonder if today will be the day I find my house ransacked again. I am also concerned for my dad's and my own safety when either of us are home alone. We don't have cops ride up and down our street, and it takes them at least 20 to 30 minutes to get here. If someone were to come into my house right now with a gun, there is no other alternative than to defend myself. In rural areas, you just don't have the luxury of playing it safe.

I say a good compromise would be government issued guns. Make it where the right to have a gun could be taken away. Every gun received at age 21 would be registered to one person and could never be sold and only exchanged when it is damaged. Just like drivers ed everyone will need to pass a mandatory gun safety and firing class. A person could still buy other types of guns from a federally approved third party vendor, but they require the same standards. If a person doesn't want a gun, then they don't gave ti go take the test and all to get one. Something like that may be good.

evildisco

February 6th, 2009, 06:48 PM

I say cookies are better than guns, actually pie is better than guns, actually cake is better than anything.

Cake something we can all agree on!

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 06:50 PM

granted Evil but you're not a MOD so if you don't want to debate then don't but don't tell me to shut up leave that to the admin please.

I have to agree about cake though as long as it's cheese cake :P

evildisco

February 6th, 2009, 06:53 PM

It gets boring that's all, I mean cake is so much better than discussing about things that are divisive.

s.ketch

February 6th, 2009, 06:54 PM

Actually I am anti-skub. Skub is a danger to not only you and I, but to the entire world. Skub killed my father and gave me uninhabitable bowl syndrome. Fuck skub and all who support it.

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 06:56 PM

ok dumb question but what the hell is Skub??? and Evil if you feel that this is divisive than don't participate, I find debates like this fun and exhilarating. I have already said I love to hear and see what people have to say, even if I don't agree.

Dished

February 6th, 2009, 07:09 PM

:\ :nohope: :frustrated:

spaztastic

February 6th, 2009, 07:13 PM

seriously what the hell is SKub??? I know it's a dumb question but I honestly don't know what it is. :nohope:

r.mccabe

February 6th, 2009, 07:45 PM

I just googled it up. I'm pretty sure its an insider interweb joke. Wasn't worth the bandwidth to google.

Blue Severin

February 6th, 2009, 09:29 PM

I'm sorry for what happened to your friend.

That said, for every isolated scenario where someone could potentially have been stopped by someone with a gun, there are likely many more people who haven't died from gun deaths because of the restriction of firearms in Japan.

"there are likely..." wtf? nice fact to back up your refutation of another argument. I'm a pretty conservative guy, so if I get into this I'll just get angry, but if you're going to argue, stop using feelings and 'common knowledge' as a basis for your arguments.

Blackhawk

February 8th, 2009, 04:59 PM

I respect the stance foreigners have in regards to gun laws in their own countries, but in the United States, it was made a right for two reasons, protection, and prevention, from both crime and tyranny.

The fact that gun ownership is a right through the Constitution itself should be enough to end this discussion. As artists we wouldn't argue against our first amendment rights to free expression, so why loathe the amendment that allows us to protect that first amendment right?

DanielC

February 9th, 2009, 01:19 AM

Blackhawk

February 9th, 2009, 12:56 PM

humm well, i'm not from here so i don't really understand how you guys work. Since i'm not likely to adapt to this way of thinking and common sense is not discuss-able, i guess i can only disagree. And sorry for my previous post, I was pretty out of place, but imo the end of the story still ends up with death, and that goes above any kind of law...

Anyway, ill stop contributing to flaming threads, and i agree... Cakes are better ! :]

The cake is a lie!

Everything in life eventually ends in death at some point. Some day in my studio I could trip over a tube of paint on the ground and, through a freak accident, send a palette knife through my jugular and kill myself, it's the way it goes, weirder things have happened to people.

The fact about guns, is they are an inanimate object, and inanimate objects are inherently neither good or evil since they can't just jump up on their two feet and shoot someone on their own or commit actions out of their own motivation.

Guns, for better or worse, have done as much good as bad for this world. In the case of the United States, it did a lot of good, this country wouldn't have existed or still exist if not for that little piece of metal. Guns also remind the politicians of their place with the citizens as well.

I can't excuse evil things people would do with a gun (or a knife, or a baseball bat, or their fists and feet), but you don't try to protect good people by leaving evil people as the only ones with access to firearms, which in the case of gun registration and confiscation is usually the historical outcome. When I speak of evil as well, I speak of governments also, like the Nazi's or the Soviet Russians, not just petty criminals. Past government's loved the ability to disarm a population of good people that couldn't fight back against their genocide.

One more little tidbit about guns in the United States, is despite the percieved rampant use of firearms among the population, fact is most people in the United States won't shoot a firearm in their lifetime or even encounter a situation with a firearm in their lifetime. I believe the outside perception of guns in the United States is we walk around like cowboys and brandish firearms at eachother, but that's not the case at all. Also, if you've ever met the average gun owner, like myself, you would quickly realize we aren't gun nuts that fawn over our pistols everynight on some mantle and bow to them, we just enjoy being able to protect against that 1%er ever happening.

Aly Fell

February 9th, 2009, 01:33 PM

Ah, but guns are designed to kill. Like the bomb in the film 'Dark Star' that's what guns do. A palette knife is very good at spreading paint. You try spreading burnt umber with with a Glock... no good. Better off with a palette knife really... yup, I choose a palette knife every time.

Blue Severin

February 9th, 2009, 04:22 PM

nah, guns aren't psychotic AI bombs :P.

@ DanielC- not common sense, common knowledge http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_knowledge

ethan karnopp

February 9th, 2009, 06:16 PM

great news in my book

Vorace

February 9th, 2009, 06:28 PM

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

A quote from this website : As a result, Canada has roughly 1 million handguns while the United States has more than 76 million. While there are other factors affecting murder, suicide and unintentional injury rates, a comparison of data in Canada and the United States suggests that access to handguns may play a role. While the murder rate without guns in the US is roughly equivalent (1.8 times) to that of Canada, the murder rate with handguns is 14.5 times the Canadian rate. The costs of firearms death and injury in the two countries have been compared and estimated to be $495 (US) per resident in the United States compared to $195 per resident in Canada.

Aly Fell

February 9th, 2009, 06:47 PM

nah, guns aren't psychotic AI bombs :P.

Indeed, but what would a gun say if it could speak? (Apart from 'bang' I mean...)

"Hello Gun."

"Hello. Please, what am I here for?"

"You're a gun. You fire a projectile from your long tubular nose. This projectile enters a living being and it ceases to exist."

"That's not really a very nice thing to do is it? I don't really like myself."

"No, it's not really. In fact being a gun means that people hate you, but lots of people still want to run their fingers along your long metally nose."

"That sounds fun, but in the end that's not what I was made for is it? Who made me?"

"Men made you. In fact you are legion. There's lots of you."

"I don't want to kill anymore. It's a bit crap really. I just want to make an oil painting."

"Unfortunately that's not up to you..."

XanaChama

February 9th, 2009, 06:52 PM

percieved rampant use of firearms among the population, fact is most people in the United States won't shoot a firearm in their lifetime or even encounter a situation with a firearm in their lifetime. I believe the outside perception of guns in the United States is we walk around like cowboys and brandish firearms at eachother, but that's not the case at all. Also, if you've ever met the average gun owner, like myself, you would quickly realize we aren't gun nuts that fawn over our pistols everynight on some mantle and bow to them, we just enjoy being able to protect against that 1%er ever happening.

Not to oppose your point (which I agree with), there is a section of the population that is "gun crazy". That is, they are on the extreme spectrum of conservative (whatever that is nowadays) that thinks Obama is a Muslim and that he's a socialist, etc etc. If you've ever gone to a gun show, then you know what I'm talking about. Maybe next time I go, I need to take pictures of the bumper stickers and t-shirts I see on people's backs when I'm walking around there. These are people who really think the country is going down the wrong track and have helped with the recent boom in gun sales. It's almost like they're preparing for war.

To me, these people seem a tad bit rhetoric, not primarily based on weapons at all. Their beliefs at the base tend to be extreme and these are the same people who voted for Bush and probably part of the 30% of his approval rating when he left office. They don't come from the same thinking that the rest of the U.S. does. You can pull out facts that reinforce the contrary, but their rulebook of thinking comes from a source that is either based on fear or olden day racism.

Recently, we went to go purchase a pistol for my fiance (he is a security guard). The guy had a calendar hanging on his wall with george Bush and his wife, their signatures hanging proudly in the shop. Now keep in mind, this guy is a veteran police officer and is currently a federal investigator. I don't know how anyone could condone what Bush has done to our country. But apparently to them, Obama is worse than Bush. We could argue how Obama won't be a good president, blah blah blah. But what I mean is, these people are seriously scared of him. And maybe with good reason...

I hope I didn't open a can of worms. I am trying to articulate myself well, but it's not working. I am just pointing out that there is a section of the population that makes a bad impression on this issue. I hate to say it, but I would feel the same way if my first and only impression of a gun owner was some extreme whack-job.

I find it interesting every time I go to a gun show... not sure what to think.

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 07:02 PM

"there are likely..." wtf? nice fact to back up your refutation of another argument. I'm a pretty conservative guy, so if I get into this I'll just get angry, but if you're going to argue, stop using feelings and 'common knowledge' as a basis for your arguments.

Okay then.

From Firearm-related deaths in the United States and 35 other high- and upper-middleincome countries (http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/27/2/214.pdf), the US leads with firearm homicide rate of ~7 per 100,000 versus Japan all the way at the bottom with 0.2.

Granted these are based on stats from 1990-1995 where violent crime spiked in the US before falling, but looking up some more recent stats suggests that most weapon-based homicides involve firearms (~70% in 2004).

And there's also this paper: International correlations between gun ownership and rates of homicide and suicide (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/abstract/148/10/1721). They derive a correlation between firearm ownership and homicide rates, including homicide by firearm.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 07:12 PM

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 07:17 PM

Pita then be glad when our rights and freedoms are stripped from us. Be glad when we are forced to serve 3 months in the National defense service. Be glad when we are no longer aloud to defend the voiceless, the defenseless, and the innocent. Be glad then that the constitution will mean nothing, when everything the framers had written can just as easily be done away with as this second amendment. Be glad my friend for our rights and freedoms depend on it.

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 07:34 PM

The fact that gun ownership is a right through the Constitution itself should be enough to end this discussion.

Well not really. There's also that "well regulated militia" part of it which tends to get completely ignored (esp given the US has a standing army).

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 07:43 PM

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 07:53 PM

I am responding to your "facts" on violence related to guns and gun ownership. needless to say yes we are going to have more crime than Japan, since Japan can fit into the state of California. More people means, more emotion, more emotion means less people using logic, less people using logic means more crimes. Why should our rights and Amendments even matter to you, you're not in America having to deal with our laws or our rights.
We are not trying to get Canada to make pot illegal are we?
Gun ownership is an American right, it is in our amendments, if you don't understand it that's fine, but don't tell us what we can do with OUR FREEDOMS!

Jem'ennuie

February 9th, 2009, 07:57 PM

Why should our rights and Amendments even matter to you, you're not in America having to deal with our laws or our rights.

If you can't even see where the American gun "tolerance" and stupidity influences the rest of the world you need to stay off whatever it is you're smoking.

Every single time a gun gets bought you are stimulating the weapon industry and you are putting small arms on the market which often end up on the black market in other countries. Some american "gun lovers" need to get a god damn clue.

There's a reason why some people get so upset at SOME americans and their policies, it's stuff like that, their complete obliviousness of cause and effect.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:08 PM

Guns would have been put on the black market even if America had never had them. So to BLAME US for that is infantile. People need to step back and take at look at where there own countries are before they start telling us how to run ours.
I enjoy the rights I have, ALL OF THEM. I enjoy the ability to protect those rights and myself and my family.
So please quit blaming America, our Constitution, and our Amendments, for all of the problems of the world!

Jem'ennuie

February 9th, 2009, 08:09 PM

Guns would have been put on the black market even if America had never had them. So to BLAME US for that is infantile.

You are kidding me right?

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:10 PM

Please France had guns long before America.
As well as England. Spain. and many others.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:12 PM

mmm stings to think that maybe your own Country is at fault for contributing to the black market isn't.

Jem'ennuie

February 9th, 2009, 08:14 PM

Please France had guns long before America.
As well as England. Spain. and many others.

What does France have to do with your countries inability to control your weapon production and demand?

You are responsible when someone gets shot in South America or Afrika with the gun your countries black market sold to them.

So you should start rethinking your premise that no one outside of America should care what you do with your guns. Because the people who live with these tradgedies DO care.

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 08:17 PM

I am responding to your "facts" on violence related to guns and gun ownership.

You're not actually responding to them at all. It just reads as a complete non-sequitur. How does what you wrote even begin to follow from what I wrote?

needless to say yes we are going to have more crime than Japan, since Japan can fit into the state of California. More people means, more emotion, more emotion means less people using logic, less people using logic means more crimes.

Okay, this makes even less sense. Japan is a small country (relative to the US), but its population density is about 10 times that of the US. If it's about population, you should expect Japan to have a considerably higher crime rate than the US. But they don't.

Why should our rights and Amendments even matter to you, you're not in America having to deal with our laws or our rights.
We are not trying to get Canada to make pot illegal are we? Gun ownership is an American right, it is in our amendments, if you don't understand it that's fine, but don't tell us what we can do with OUR FREEDOMS!

This make come as a surprise to you, but I'm not actually trying to get guns banned. I'm not opposed to gun ownership (within reason mind you). But I think people simply need to recognize that when ~40% of your population is buying guns for "protection", that signals a fundamental problem with something in your country.

Simply going on about the 2nd amendment and your freedoms does not make the facts and less real or uncomfortable.

Jem'ennuie

February 9th, 2009, 08:25 PM

If the guns America (and other countries, I'm not singling you out) produced stayed inside their borders you might have an argument.

But countless reports show that each year, thousands of these guns end up on the black market in South America, Afrika and Asia. Even in countries which have stricter gun laws than the US. Each time a gun gets sold it has a chance to end up on the black market.

America is partly responsible for this, it's their "need" to keep producing small arms and to stimulate the weapon industry.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:25 PM

@pita:
okay you may have a point about Japan I will give you that, however they have an incredibly higher suicide rate than America. just want to point that out.
now what some idiots do with their freedoms and ability to bear arms should not enable the government to put restrictions on mine. It's a real problem for me when the government that is for the people, and under the people try's to put restrictions on the freedoms of the people. I do not like big governments that think people are incapable of taking care of themselves, so they treat us like babies and take away our rights.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:30 PM

@ Jem:
ok so ban all guns, but you will still have that problem now however we the people can't defend ourselves because of other countries irrational fears. also one way to lessen the leak of munition to other countries and the black market would be better border control. not many people want that though. yes there are a lot of problems with the way our government is run , not gonna argue there. But i am not going to let a government, my government, that is subservient to it's people take away the rights those people have.

ethan karnopp

February 9th, 2009, 08:33 PM

The theory of the militia sought out to be formed by our forefathers (and to be maintained by the second amendment) meant that citizens were aloud to keep personal arms in order to engage in whatever political motivation they feel necessary. The reason for this was not only for personal protection, but more importantly to abolish standing armies, which was the greatest fear for a lot of the founders of the US. In the past hundred years we have seen a huge amount of change in this idea, and since, our nation has slowly engaged in a standing army. Personally I'm under the impression that a militia is a much better system, there would be less invasions (resulting in less hostility), less tyranny in military power and most of all less violence. Think about it on a personal level: the people that want to shoot people, are people that disregard law anyway, laws and regulation won't stop them! These laws are for people that want to protect themselves and families, and I am for that. There is somethng to be said about the fact that people that are respectful gun owners, have a liability to overreact and misuse them unintentionally. But that is a risk I am willing to take, honestly.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:33 PM

XanaChama

February 9th, 2009, 08:36 PM

Xana just because a lot of people believe that Obama is going to pull this country down into the mire doesn't make them whack jobs. And just because some is fascinated with guns doesn't make them killers.

I didn't like Bush or condone his stances on a lot of things, he was moderate on too many issues. But he ran our country admits turmoil. I certainly don't like Obama, his stances on certain issues are in line with what something the Nazis would have condoned. I won't go into details because I don't want to derail the subject. Obama is worse than Bush in that he want's to ban our rights to protect ourselves, the second amendment protects every other constitutional right we bear, If he is able to ban our right to bear arms and protect ourselves he may as well ban every other amendment. If we can not protect ourselves then we cannot protect our beliefs and stances, therefore we would no longer be free! I don't know about you but I like my freedoms and want them to stay for my children and my children s children!

Did you even read my post? Stop chat rooming in these threads. I am the second person to be tired of it. (or maybe third, fourth... whatever). I did not make my views based on people feeling that Obama is bringing this country down, but rather their actinos. These are not typical conservatives. These are people who are racists, openly so. They put bumper stickers on their car with slogans that degrade women, that degrade people of color. These are people don't respect the rights they wish to support with their views. If they could have their way they would "clean things up" and condone hate crimes.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, then don't bother replying. Otherwise, you're yet again recycling your views to increase your post count.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:37 PM

@ Ethan
Thank you, you put that much more eloquently than I could have ever done!

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 08:40 PM

Did you even read my post? Stop chat rooming in these threads. I am the second person to be tired of it. (or maybe third, fourth... whatever). I did not make my views based on people feeling that Obama is bringing this country down, but rather their actinos. These are not typical conservatives. These are people who are racists, openly so. They put bumper stickers on their car with slogans that degrade women, that degrade people of color. These are people don't respect the rights they wish to support with their views. If they could have their way they would "clean things up" and condone hate crimes.

If you have no idea what I am talking about, then don't bother replying. Otherwise, you're yet again recycling your views to increase your post count.
Xana I apologize I misunderstood you, however there is no need for the hostility in the tone of your thread.
and no I am not trying to boost my post count I happen to be taking a break from my art :P.
I will say I feel strongly about this issue, and if you disagree with me that's fine. No hard feelings. But please do not tell me what to do, leave it to the mods and admin.

ethan karnopp

February 9th, 2009, 08:59 PM

Just wanted to say I've been on both sides of this arguement, but if you truely are an advocate of a peaceful, free society it is worth asking yourself the question: who is best to advise one, but oneself? I thought some of you might appreciate some food for thought, coming from some very brilliant people.

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." --Thomas Jefferson, 1803.

"[The] governor [is] constitutionally the commander of the militia of the State, that is to say, of every man in it able to bear arms." --Thomas Jefferson to A. L. C. Destutt de Tracy, 1811.

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

- Elbridge Gerry

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

AND my favorite

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

Why should we fear standing armies? I think Hermann Goring, prominent Nazi politician and commander summed it up the best:

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ...voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.

XanaChama

February 9th, 2009, 09:12 PM

This make come as a surprise to you, but I'm not actually trying to get guns banned. I'm not opposed to gun ownership (within reason mind you). But I think people simply need to recognize that when ~40% of your population is buying guns for "protection", that signals a fundamental problem with something in your country.

Simply going on about the 2nd amendment and your freedoms does not make the facts and less real or uncomfortable.

Ok. Could you possibly have less humility and respect? Stop talking about my country like you have lived here. I don't go judging your country's political system like I have every right to berate it that way, and I wouldn't do that. All I ask is that you have some respect. I know to you, Americans must seem like barbarians sometimes, but please please stop generalizing. If you must have an argument to support, that is one thing. But to go beyond respectful discussion and making irresponsible judge ments about my countrymen, I find it extremely offensive. You have no idea.

Samuel Gray

February 9th, 2009, 09:16 PM

listen to ethan or else

XanaChama

February 9th, 2009, 09:35 PM

This is new. This is a bill raised in House Judiciary Committee. This is in the State of Maryland BTW. Maryland is in the minority when it comes to very strict conceal and carry.

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?p=219073#post219073

Immediate Action Needed

Thanks to your previous efforts, the bill to reform the language with which we will be able to exercise our right to self defense has a total of 42 sponsors and co-sponsors. We are pleased to report that Delegate Dan Riley (D - District 34A - Cecil and Harford) has submitted the bill and it now registered as HB470.

HB470 would repeal the requirement for the State Police to find that a person has a good and substantial reason for the issuance of a permit to wear, carry or transport a handgun. This would effectively let Maryland join the ranks of the vast majority of states who recognize the right to self-defense.

Now is where the hard begins and it is imperative that we move quickly since the hearing for the bill is scheduled for February 24 at 1pm.

What we need you to do:

•Contact the members of the House Judiciary Committee who are not already co-sponsors of the bill and ask for a favorable report on HB470, Handgun Requirements - Repeal of Finding Requirement. Remind them that Maryland is in the distinct minority of states when it comes to its current policy on the issuance of permits. Remind them that this will not change in anyway the necessity for criminal background checks for either the permit process or the purchase of a firearm.

•It is particularly important that as many people from the districts of the Delegates below make contacts. Those communications are invaluable to educating these legislators from districts traditionally thought of as anti-self-defense.

Samuel I. Rosenberg
Curtis S. (Curt) Anderson
Benjamin S. Barnes
Jill P. Carter
Frank M. Conaway, Jr.
Kathleen M. Dumais
Benjamin F. Kramer
Susan C. Lee
Gerron S. Levi
Victor R. Ramirez
Luiz R. S. Simmons
Kriselda Valderrama
Jeffrey D. Waldstreicher

•Contact Chairman Vallario and respectfully request that he allow for a hearing and, most importantly, a vote on the bill which will be appearing before his committee on February 24th.

JOSEPH F. VALLARIO, JR.
House Office Building, Room 101
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3488, (301) 858-3488
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3488 (toll free)
e-mail: joseph.vallario@house.state.md.us
fax: (410) 841-3850, (301) 858-3850

TOOLS TO ASSIST YOU (thanks to our friends at MDShooters.com):
•Quick email tool (thanks to MSI Executive Member Jim S.)
•Find your delegate
•Pre-formatted mailing labels for the House Judiciary Committee
•How to create mail merge letters using pre-formatted label

XanaChama

February 9th, 2009, 09:38 PM

And this is regarding a new bill to ban certain weapons federally. Basically anything semi-automatic that has the potential for high capacity magazines (more magazines = more bullets):

http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=14832&highlight=federal+gun+ban

Found this article while reading Blackwater tactical weekly newsletter ,Here we go with the dumb a-- liberal gun haters .Gun Law Update: Gun-Ban List Proposed
Alan Korwin

Gun Law Update by Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America Jan. 5, 2008

Slipping below the radar (or under the short-term memory cap), the Democrats have already leaked a gun-ban list, even under the Bush administration when they knew full well it had no chance of passage (HR 1022, 110th Congress). It serves as a framework for the new list the Brady’s plan to introduce shortly.

I have an outline of the Brady’s current plans and targets of opportunity, It’s horrific. They’re going after the courts, regulatory agencies, firearms dealers and statutes in an all out effort to restrict we the people. They’ve
made little mention of criminals.

Now more than ever, attention to the entire Bill of Rights is critical. Gun bans will impact our freedoms under search and seizure, due process, confiscated property, states’ rights, free speech, right to assemble and more, in addition to the Second Amendment.

The Democrats current gun-ban-list proposal (final list will be worse):

Rifles (or copies or duplicates):
M1 Carbine, Sturm Ruger Mini-14, AR-15, Bushmaster XM15, Armalite M15, AR-10, Thompson 1927, Thompson M1; AK, AKM, AKS, AK-47, AK-74, ARM, MAK90, NHM 90, NHM 91, SA 85, SA 93, VEPR; Olympic Arms PCR; AR70, Calico Liberty, Dragunov SVD Sniper Rifle or Dragunov SVU, Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FNC, Hi-Point Carbine, HK-91, HK-93, HK-94, HK-PSG-1, Thompson 1927 Commando, Kel-Tec Sub Rifle; Saiga, SAR-8, SAR-4800, SKS with detachable magazine, SLG 95, SLR 95 or 96, Steyr AU, Tavor, Uzi, Galil and Uzi Sporter, Galil Sporter, or Galil Sniper Rifle (Galatz).

Pistols (or copies or duplicates):
Calico M-110, MAC-10, MAC-11, or MPA3, Olympic Arms OA, TEC-9, TEC-DC9, TEC-22 Scorpion, or AB-10, Uzi.

Shotguns (or copies or duplicates):
Armscor 30 BG, SPAS 12 or LAW 12, Striker 12, Streetsweeper.

Catch-all category (for anything missed or new designs):
A semiautomatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine and has (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a pistol grip (which includes ANYTHING that can serve as a grip, see below), (iv) a forward grip; or a barrel shroud.

Any semiautomatic rifle with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds (except tubular magazine .22 rimfire rifles).

A semiautomatic pistol that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and has (i) a second pistol grip, (ii) a threaded barrel, (iii) a barrel shroud or (iv) can accept a detachable magazine outside of the pistol grip, and (v) a semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 rounds.

A semiautomatic shotgun with (i) a folding or telescoping stock, (ii) a pistol grip (see definition below), (iii) the ability to accept a detachable magazine or a fixed magazine capacity of more than 5 rounds, and (iv) a shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

Frames or receivers for the above are included, along with conversion kits.

Attorney General gets carte blanche to ban guns at will:
Under the proposal, the U.S. Attorney General can add any “semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General.” Note that Obama’s pick for this office (Eric Holder, confirmation hearing set for Jan. 15) wrote a brief in the Heller case supporting the position that you have no right to have a working firearm in your own home.

In making this determination, the bill says, “there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event.”

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

The last part is particularly clever, stating that a firearm doesn’t have a sporting purpose just because it can be used for sporting purpose — is that devious or what? And of course, “sporting purpose” is a rights infringement with no constitutional or historical support whatsoever, invented by domestic enemies of the right to keep and bear arms to further their cause of disarming the innocent.

Respectfully submitted, Alan Korwin, Author Gun Laws of America

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 09:41 PM

Personally I'm under the impression that a militia is a much better system, there would be less invasions (resulting in less hostility), less tyranny in military power and most of all less violence.

Speaking of militias in general, I think you need a real stable backbone in society first of all. I don't know how well it would work in the US. Country like Switzerland, sure. Certain countries in Africa, definitely not.

Think about it on a personal level: the people that want to shoot people, are people that disregard law anyway, laws and regulation won't stop them! These laws are for people that want to protect themselves and families, and I am for that.

Let me ask you this: Say we abolished gun ownership in the US tomorrow and say this was guaranteed to reduce gun fatalities by a factor of 10. Just hypothetical, but play along.

Would you be in favor of banning gun ownership if it would be guaranteed to have that impact?

Jem'ennuie

February 9th, 2009, 09:45 PM

In plain English this means that ANY firearm ever obtained by federal officers or the military is not suitable for the public.

Which is how it should be. My friend is in the army and uses the latest FN weapon, built a few cities from where I live.

The P90 military round penetrates 48 Kevlar vests. 48 vests....it penetrates Kevlar helmets and penetrates cars. Trust me, you do not want to see these things get into civilian hands. Would you like to be the cop stopping someone who can just blow holes through your armor?

Semi auto weapons shouldn't even be in the hands of citizens, what the hell do civilians need semi auto for.

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 09:46 PM

Ok. Could you possibly have less humility and respect? Stop talking about my country like you have lived here. I don't go judging your country's political system like I have every right to berate it that way, and I wouldn't do that. All I ask is that you have some respect. I know to you, Americans must seem like barbarians sometimes, but please please stop generalizing. If you must have an argument to support, that is one thing. But to go beyond respectful discussion and making irresponsible judge ments about my countrymen, I find it extremely offensive. You have no idea.

You may find it "extremely offensive" but it doesn't change the fact that almost 40% of your countrymen are buying guns because they feel a need to protect themselves. I ask you, what is making people that afraid that they need to own a gun to protect themselves?

To me, that signals a deeper, more fundamental problem. Again, you may find this offensive, but I am not apologizing for my views of the subject.

XanaChama

February 9th, 2009, 09:50 PM

You may find it "extremely offensive" but it doesn't change the fact that almost 40% of your countrymen are buying guns because they feel a need to protect themselves. I ask you, what is making people that afraid that they need to own a gun to protect themselves?

To me, that signals a deeper, more fundamental problem. Again, you may find this offensive, but I am not apologizing for my views of the subject.

Good for you.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 09:52 PM

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 09:53 PM

Jem'ennuie

February 9th, 2009, 09:55 PM

Jem the government has no right to do any thing without the consent of We The People. I for one do not intend to let the government play god by taking away our ability to choose which weapons we want to defend our homes, families, and freedoms.

It's not just your ability, the company has a say in this too. FN and HK weapon are not made in the US, (although they have some small US factories) they are European gun makers and have chosen that the public is not allowed to use military rounds or Full automatic guns of their make.

The P90, F2000, many H&K are all not available to the public, if america doesn't respect these rules then these companies will stop supplying US troops with guns because they need to follow Europeans regulations.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 09:56 PM

Pita if you want to know why people are buying firearms up right and left just read Xana's posts that should be self explanatory. If not do some research on the POTUS and his reps and house members. you will see they are very big brother type of government oriented, taking away as many rights as they can with out causing a riot or revolution. They use scare tactics to keep the people "in-check" to ensure that we follow what they say because of course they know best.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 10:00 PM

this goes back to what Ethan said about the militia and the need to keep the power in the hands of the people.
Militia are better than a standing army, they come together when necessary under a common goal, they disband afterward. Who is to say what the people may or may not have, the government is taking to many liberties for themselves by taking We the People's away!

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 10:05 PM

Pita if you want to know why people are buying firearms up right and left just read Xana's posts that should be self explanatory.

I assume you're talking about the last two? In which case it's not self explanatory.

Again, you're talking to someone who has never owned a gun nor ever felt a maddening desire to own one. So the idea of buying up guns in case you can't buy them anymore mystifies me.

If not do some research on the POTUS and his reps and house members. you will see they are very big brother type of government oriented, taking away as many rights as they can with out causing a riot or revolution. They use scare tactics to keep the people "in-check" to ensure that we follow what they say because of course they know best.

Do you have anything specific you can point out?

ethan karnopp

February 9th, 2009, 10:05 PM

Speaking of militias in general, I think you need a real stable backbone in society first of all. I don't know how well it would work in the US. Country like Switzerland, sure. Certain countries in Africa, definitely not.

Let me ask you this: Say we abolished gun ownership in the US tomorrow and say this was guaranteed to reduce gun fatalities by a factor of 10. Just hypothetical, but play along.

Would you be in favor of banning gun ownership if it would be guaranteed to have that impact?

Yes there is a great deal of responsibility to understanding one's right to bear arms, i completely agree.

As for your statistic, although it is tempting for me to say yes (because of course I want less violence), I can't. Putting aside the actual cause/effect factor that we are debating, I am never an advocate of telling other people how to live, which is (gun) regulation in general. Also to be overconcerned with the necessary evil that comes along with gun ownership, you completely neglect to think about the original intent of the second amendment. So no, I would not be for it, even in this hypothetical situation with wonderful results, I still would not agree with it.

spaztastic

February 9th, 2009, 10:09 PM

Pita if you want something more specific please pm me. I don't want to derail this thread.

pitabread

February 9th, 2009, 10:10 PM

As for your statistic, although it is tempting for me to say yes (because of course I want less violence), I can't. Putting aside the actual cause/effect factor that we are debating, I am never an advocate of telling other people how to live, which is (gun) regulation in general.

I thank you for being honest. So I take you don't take a utilitarian approach to these issues. Which is fair, but I believe a very tricky balancing act.

OOC, say I substituted "guns" for "drugs" in the previous scenario. Would you be in favor of legalizing controlled substances?

ethan karnopp

February 9th, 2009, 10:50 PM

of course

Blue Severin

February 10th, 2009, 04:01 AM

a gun is a tool designed to give 'we the people' the power to defend ourselves from either oppressive government or armed criminals, both of which do have firearms, and will have firearms whether or not guns are banned.

The 2nd amendment means that U.S. citizens will have guns no matter what. The argument is not over whether to ban them, but what types of guns are the citizens allowed to have, making sure people are educated about firearms so that they are useful when needed and not a safety hazard, and what laws are needed to keep guns away from criminals and in the hands of responsible citizens.

@ Jem'ennuie. The idea is that U.S. citizens have the same powers to defend themselves as soldiers, to protect our freedoms, a.ka. the 2nd amendment. Heh, but citizens in the U.S. can't get steel core 5.7 ammunition that the P90 uses for armor penetration, just hollow points. By the way, any hunting rifle will punch through kevlar and car doors. And hunting rifles can be semi automatic.

and a qoute just for fun
"An armed society is a polite society"- Robert Heinlein

and because some people can word my side of the argument better than I can, here are some articles, even if you don't agree, they might be interesting. The argument's getting a bit better, less B.S. :)

http://thelineishere.org/?p=202

http://www.examiner.com/x-1449-Dallas-Libertarian-Examiner~y2008m12d13-An-armed-society-is-a-polite-society

P.S. I live in a city where handguns are banned, yet there are still shootings and robberies at gunpoint in the rougher areas (heh always fun to listen to a gun fight, not.) Criminals have no problems acquiring weapons here, and the police are spread pretty thin in the same rough areas. (rough area= cheaper rent, what can I say.)

Blue Severin

February 10th, 2009, 04:18 AM

found another pretty good one, good in entertainment value, funny ads. http://www.a-human-right.com/staysafe.html

Jem'ennuie

February 10th, 2009, 04:28 AM

a gun is a tool designed to give 'we the people' the power to defend ourselves from either oppressive government or armed criminals

That's just such crap.

Firearms were never intented to fend of a government, they were made to fend off ethnic conflicts and invasions.

Most of the US guns aren't even made by the US but mostly come from Europe and the companies there have a lot to say about who can and who can't use what gun.

An eye for an eye will make everyone blind.

Jem'ennuie

February 10th, 2009, 04:33 AM

@ Jem'ennuie. The idea is that U.S. citizens have the same powers to defend themselves as soldiers, to protect our freedoms, a.ka. the 2nd amendment. Heh, but citizens in the U.S. can't get steel core 5.7 ammunition that the P90 uses for armor penetration, just hollow points. By the way, any hunting rifle will punch through kevlar and car doors. And hunting rifles can be semi automatic.

Because FN is a belgium company and they decide who gets what. The P90 ammo is deadly, it should never come into hands of citizens and the day it does is the day the US can kiss FN weapons goodbye, they have european regulations to live by. The PS90 was already way too much for civilians.

Blue Severin

February 10th, 2009, 04:38 AM

uhm, revolutionary war anyone? how about civil war? definitely government revolution over here mate. Hmm ethnic conflicts, I guess the native americans is all I can think of. Not much invasion, unless you count Japan and Pearl Harbor. Uhm your post doesn't make much sense pertaining to the U.S. An eye for an eye, uh so if I get shot, the law says I can shoot someone? not sure where you're going with this stuff, please clarify.

Blue Severin

February 10th, 2009, 04:43 AM

223 goes through kevlar and car doors, and is readily available over here. so does 7.62x39, and it's also easy to get. p90's aren't really common over here, but the FN 5.7, the sidearm pistol, is available pretty much everywhere and uses the same ammo. But like I said, we can only get the hollow points (still go through kevlar) and not the steel core AP rounds. I'm not sure why you're getting pissy about FN's European regulations, doesn't really have much to do with the argument. Not sure where the argument in this thread is anymore anyway :).

Jem'ennuie

February 10th, 2009, 04:46 AM

An eye for an eye, uh so if I get shot, the law says I can shoot someone? not sure where you're going with this stuff, please clarify.

It's just a ghandi expression. The premise is that violence creates violence. If they keep bending the rules on semi-auto and keep giving citizens higher velocity barrels and heavy rounds, you keep increasing the potential of a bloody conflict. These weapons also end up on the black market. If everyone is "packed", there can only be tradgedy.

Who do you think the UN pulls on their ears if these weapons end up in the hands of somalian pirates? The weapon makers. They also have a say in who should get what weapons because they are also responsible when weapons come into the black market. I have no clue why amaricans are so trigger-happy, but part of it must be custom.

All semi auto should not come into hands of US citizens imo.

Blue Severin

February 10th, 2009, 04:54 AM

yes, heavier bullets with higher velocities escalate conflicts, no doubt about it.

ah, so there's the argument, if U.S. citizens can get semi auto weapons, then they will be sold on the black market to pirates. Therefore no U.S. citizens should have semi-auto weapons. I'm laughing as I read the logic of that.

as far as customs, yes, the U.S. have different customs. We're only about 80 years out of the wild west (in Colorado where I'm from anyway. ) I've actually met a lady who came into my home town on a covered wagon, so those days are still pretty fresh in rural American culture. And it's not about being trigger happy, as much as being able to be trigger happy if needed. The right to that ability.

Jem'ennuie

February 10th, 2009, 04:58 AM

ah, so there's the argument, if U.S. citizens can get semi auto weapons, then they will be sold on the black market to pirates. Therefore no U.S. citizens should have semi-auto weapons. I'm laughing as I read the logic of that

Many weapons come into the black market yes. It's not funny to hear that a UN convoy gets shot because another country (often the US or a South american nation, eastern european sometimes) can't control their gun market anymore. I think people need to be more aware of this, and that's why you need much stricter regulations than you have now in the US imo, especially on semi auto and rounds, weapons prone to trickle down to the black market.

Blue Severin

February 10th, 2009, 05:02 AM

Jem'ennuie

February 10th, 2009, 05:10 AM

*shrug* if it's on the black market, it's illegal and has already bypassed regulations, so how will those help? I think you're talking arms trading politics more than 2nd amendment rights, I'm interested to know more, any good info?

Well, if US citizens were not allowed to use semi auto in the first place, the chance of these weapons ever coming into hands of terrorists or pirates or w/e, would be greatly reduced.

I also realise that there's a much higher need to defend yourself in the US compared to Europe where seeing a gun on someone happens only on special ops or special police forces. Our regular police (beligum uses a knight stick). But we also don't have to worry about getting shot or robbed usually.

Even if intentions are right, and I know they are for a lot of US citizens, they seem really truthfull about their right to protect themselves and their loved ones, it's not good to ignore that these weapons stay in regulation and often end up in another country.

Anyway, I need a break. Also, I am quite sorry to be so offensive sometimes, you seem kind enough, have fun.

Blue Severin

February 10th, 2009, 05:23 AM

You too, bed time.

Mon Chat

February 10th, 2009, 06:45 PM

hmmm... buy this gun to protect your home, protect your home from people with guns.

spaztastic

February 10th, 2009, 07:56 PM

Xana again I apologize I did not mean to offend by my reply to your post I misunderstood what you were talking about and should have asked for clarification.

pitabread

February 10th, 2009, 08:53 PM

uhm, revolutionary war anyone? how about civil war? definitely government revolution over here mate.

From an outsider perspective, it seems America's history really has shaped a strong cultural attitude towards guns. In contrast, my country has less of a strong attitude towards guns (although people definitely do own them for hunting and what-not), but they idea of buying one for "protection" is a pretty rare concept. But at the same time, we didn't go through a revolution or civil war, so...

I'm torn about having an armed populace even in the face of tyranny, though. For example, I recently in the Czech Republic and visited the Museum of Communism. They had a documentary running which showed life in communist Czechoslovakia from post-WW2 right up until the overthrowing of communism. Watching police officers beating and arresting people with practical immpunity was hard to watch. OTOH, the revolution in that country to overthrow the communist dictatorship was bloodless (the "Velvet" Revolution).

Of course, even more interesting is that the Czech Republic has relatively liberal gun laws yet relatively little gun ownership (at least compared to places like the US) and consequently little gun crime.

Blackhawk

February 12th, 2009, 01:18 PM

Semi auto weapons shouldn't even be in the hands of citizens, what the hell do civilians need semi auto for.

What the hell do governments need semi auto weapons for?

I've seen more atrocities and murder committed by governments than by civilians. Just because someone is in the police or military doesn't instantly make them above the average citizen as far as responsibility or intelligence, they are still human afterall.

I bet you could take every accidental firearm death or even civilian to civilian murder committed with a firearm throughout the world over the course of our modern history, and I could guarantee it wouldn't match the combined carnage of a good old government war, conflict, action, or genocide.

Blackhawk

February 12th, 2009, 01:39 PM

Not to oppose your point (which I agree with), there is a section of the population that is "gun crazy". That is, they are on the extreme spectrum of conservative (whatever that is nowadays) that thinks Obama is a Muslim and that he's a socialist, etc etc. If you've ever gone to a gun show, then you know what I'm talking about. Maybe next time I go, I need to take pictures of the bumper stickers and t-shirts I see on people's backs when I'm walking around there. These are people who really think the country is going down the wrong track and have helped with the recent boom in gun sales. It's almost like they're preparing for war.

To me, these people seem a tad bit rhetoric, not primarily based on weapons at all. Their beliefs at the base tend to be extreme and these are the same people who voted for Bush and probably part of the 30% of his approval rating when he left office. They don't come from the same thinking that the rest of the U.S. does. You can pull out facts that reinforce the contrary, but their rulebook of thinking comes from a source that is either based on fear or olden day racism.

Recently, we went to go purchase a pistol for my fiance (he is a security guard). The guy had a calendar hanging on his wall with george Bush and his wife, their signatures hanging proudly in the shop. Now keep in mind, this guy is a veteran police officer and is currently a federal investigator. I don't know how anyone could condone what Bush has done to our country. But apparently to them, Obama is worse than Bush. We could argue how Obama won't be a good president, blah blah blah. But what I mean is, these people are seriously scared of him. And maybe with good reason...

I hope I didn't open a can of worms. I am trying to articulate myself well, but it's not working. I am just pointing out that there is a section of the population that makes a bad impression on this issue. I hate to say it, but I would feel the same way if my first and only impression of a gun owner was some extreme whack-job.

I find it interesting every time I go to a gun show... not sure what to think.

I'm not going to get into the politics of our current or past presidents in this thread as I feel it will derail the discussion.

Someone's political leanings doesn't necessarily make them any more or less likely to use firearms without reason. If this were the case, after 9/11 thousands of Muslims would have died around the country in retribution acts committed by this so called lunatic fringe of right wingers. In fact, only one person died after 9/11, unfortunately it happened in Arizona and it happened to a Sikh, not even a Muslim.

Humorously enough though, I've lived around people like this, and I've worked around people like this all over the country, I have my own issues with them, but they would give you the shirt off their back if you needed the help. Some people love guns like some people love video games or some people love art. For many people guns are a hobby or an art form to them, and just because they love firearms doesn't necessarily mean they sit around dreaming about putting a bullet between someone's eyes.

James Kei

February 12th, 2009, 03:10 PM

We need to stop talking about gun control, and start talking about people control.
Japan is a good example of this. They have very strict rules on gun ownership. But more importantly, it's just simply not a part of their culture to shot each other. :P

Here is an interesting article on guns in Japan...
http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Foreign/Japan-Gun-Control-and-People-Control.htm

r.mccabe

February 12th, 2009, 04:23 PM

ethan karnopp

February 12th, 2009, 04:46 PM

Gun's won't help you against your government. They would escalate conflict, and then military would be called in. IMO a spec ops team would eliminate most any resistance. You can't overthrow one of the strongest armed forces in the world with anything that can be used through a rational allowance for guns. Trained elite, heavy armor, and anti-personnel weapons will make swiss cheese out of joe blow with a gun, in any number. The only way to overthrow government oppression is either military support or democratic means.

Guns for personal protection is arguable, I won't say either way on that. Anything else is not possible. Maybe before modern weapons a militia could do something but not today. If the men and women of the army don't support the violence there should be none, it will only get poeple killed. I'd cry if there was an armed revolt, its a horrible reason to have guns. You could give 'the people' full auto, armor piercing, high velocity, high capacity guns and it still would not make a difference to the army they would be facing. The best defense against the need to have an armed revolt is the fact that its bothers sisters fathers and mothers in the army. Even in civil war, militia would be nothing but a meat shield.

Have your guns, but don't think they are going to stop special forces and Abrams tanks.

1. You are underestimating the power of guerilla warfare: look at Vietnam, Cuba, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. No matter how many millions of dollars you put into your tanks, helicopters, and armed soldiers, all it takes is a couple hundred guerillas (if that) and a lot of will power. Not to mention could you imagine being apart of the military and being forced to shoot down your own family, neighbors, and friends? The civil war was one thing due to pretty strictly defined borders between the two sides, but if there were a 'civilian uprising' on a national scale, what would the military do? They are nothing more than civilians themselves. I have a hard time believing there would be a whole lot of people willing to drop bombs on their neighborhoods.

2. The whole arguement of the second amendment was to abolish these standing armies that create such terrifying technologies.

Blue Severin

February 12th, 2009, 04:59 PM

Interesting stuff James.

r.mccabe

February 12th, 2009, 05:01 PM

Trained guerrilla warfare is one thing, civilians fighting guerrilla war is another. American uprising would be urban warfare, not jungle fighting in enemy lands. Even considering this tactic I don't see it working on home soil in an urban country. Even if it did, the weakest point of this argument is that it still requires the people to have explosives and heavy weapons. Handguns are not enough for guerrilla war. And no matter the tactic, the trained army will win, guerrilla or otherwise. Suburban society has no idea how to fight guerrilla war.

The best defense against the need to have an armed revolt is the fact that its bothers sisters fathers and mothers in the army.What I'm getting at with this is that there shouldn't be a need to fight with the government as the army is made of the people's family. The soldiers are on the same side as the people. A national uprising would IMO be supported by the military making either non existent or a civil war with loyalists.

As for abolishing the standing armies, it won't happen any time soon. It may work in some countries but when you have enemies with large standing armies the best you can hope for is to keep things quite.

Civilian uprisings don't need weapons today. Are things really so bad the civilians want to shoot there family in the army or can even conceive of it? If the men and women in the army can't support the movement then it shouldn't happen.

Edit:Look at riots, a few trained police controlling masses no bombs needed.

The difference between civilians and army is training. The army is not made up of civilians, its made up of men and women trained to fight war. Maybe civilians can shoot straight, but they are an unorganized group of non combatants. You can't just give someone a gun and tell then to hide in the hills ambushing army groups.

Blue Severin

February 12th, 2009, 05:19 PM

go watch Red Dawn, it's fiction, but lots of fun. My guess is that you have little experience with rural america.

spaztastic

February 12th, 2009, 05:24 PM

or better yet have him watch Deliverance. that's people out where I live.

r.mccabe

February 12th, 2009, 05:37 PM

I've had two years in rural America. Miserable time but I won't say more on that. Nothing will convince me that even the war game culture (I don't know what to call it) compares to army rangers for example. Anyway I can't see why there would ever be a need to go into that kind of bloodbath. Even being prepared for it is wrong in my opinion. The liberties of Americans make it seems very spoiled to wish for more to the point of revolt. Its not like there aren't other options. Its not like if the need ever arose it would be a civilian encounter, it would be civil war. I really don't understand how small arms and hunters = army.

Blue Severin

February 12th, 2009, 05:45 PM

all right, Waco Texas? http://www.serendipity.li/waco.html. Army rangers definitely can kick poeple's asses. You make it sound like Americans want to revolt. I think you're missing the point, and watch those movies!

r.mccabe

February 12th, 2009, 06:07 PM

I'm not saying they want to, but that having guns to be ready for it is wrong. I don't know much on wako, but it seems to me guns only escalated the situation.

BlightedArt

February 12th, 2009, 06:20 PM

but maybe more people need to get shot, I don't know.

Darwin awards: how many DC residents look down the barrel of the handgun to check if a bullet is in th-*BANG*

Blue Severin

February 12th, 2009, 06:37 PM

I don't know much
agreed, time to draw

r.mccabe

February 12th, 2009, 06:41 PM

gee thanks for being arrogant.

Blue Severin

February 12th, 2009, 07:17 PM

argument + evidence=win. opinions+common knowledge=fail. Not reading previous posts= double fail. Drawing.

ethan karnopp

February 12th, 2009, 09:09 PM

I've lived in rural America all of my life, people are peaceful, they dont want trouble, neither do I. I don't want bloodshed. I don't want violence. But I do want people to be free, and if they want a gun, so long as they dont use it in any other way than to defend themselves and/or their rights, why is there a problem with that. If they do use it for something else, they should be convicted. Waco is another example of how a few people can really throw the military through a loop. Such a small number of people caused so many big powerful guns to be turned on them, in the end they were unsuccesful, but if a populus were to be running that kind of revolt, abrams tanks, tear gas, and riot shields aren't saving ANYONE. Nonetheless I don't want to see a violent overthrow, I don't like the idea of that at all. I think if a good portion of the american population (maybe 50-60%+) were active members in this, it would be a damn good match. I would rather pay my taxes to arm my neighbors for them to protect themselves than arm strangers to invade other countries. I'm done.

pitabread

February 12th, 2009, 09:16 PM

or better yet have him watch Deliverance. that's people out where I live.

*shudders*

Now I can see why you need guns. :P

CGMonkey

February 15th, 2009, 09:29 AM

I've never heard an anti-gun argument that was based on anything but emotion and irrational fear.

CANADA! O_O

Blue Severin

February 15th, 2009, 03:44 PM

nah man, though there is a correlation between crime rate and gun control in Canada vs. the U.S., there are too many other factors for it to be a cause and effect relationship. Primarily population density, the State of Calirfornia has more people than the populaton of the entire country of Canada. You made me write a ton with one word, so you win.

Costau D

February 15th, 2009, 04:24 PM

KL1l_33y0uI

XanaChama

February 15th, 2009, 05:43 PM

Don't forget the U.S. has a clash of cultures, ideas, ethnicities, backgrounds, belief systems and whole new set of problems everywhere you go. Add population into it and the polarization of the country and you understand how you can't just put a thumbtack on one portion on the U.S. and have the rest of it pegged. It just doesn't work that way.

A person coming into the U.S. from country has a very different viewpoint than somebody of another ethnicity/culture/background. Every culture and sub-society brings bad and good things, and that may be pointed to as a possibility as to why the U.S. has particular problems that you don't see other in other countries. Especially when these things concentrate in certain areas or create political differences between people. It's sad that we need weapons to protect ourselves, but I just know that there are people that aren't going to respect my right to defend myself. So that is another reason why the constitution provides it for me.