i know this is probably going to start a flame war but there are some that are passionate about this subject and would like to know. i hope i am not late on this news, but if i am there are some that still dont know that need to. i myslef along with being a car buff am a dedicated sportsman, and law abiding citizen. and it angers me to no end to see not onle a law but a constitutional "bill of rights" law being broken especially when they are taking from some of the people that never had a reason to lose them. remember a car just like a gun has the capacity to kill, but only if it is not used properly. a car locked in a garage will never cause a wreck, unless taken out, and a gun will never fire a shot unless loaded. thanks again.

For those this concerns please watch this short video made by the N.R.A.
http://www.givethemback.com/

I believe in gun rights, but at the same time a lot of gun right supporters creep me out. They come off like paranoid lunatics who want the unquestioned permission by all to be armed to the teeth 24/7; and to hear them talk you'd think that they've never felt safe a day in their lives unless they were armed. This is where I part ways with them. Your first and foremost weapon is yourself. If you're afraid all the time (Or "wary" as they would say.), it doesn't matter how many guns you have, you'll be useless in a real fight.

A gun is to personal defense what an SUV is to car crashes. It might help, but most times it makes no difference and in some rare situations it actually makes things a lot worse. It's more an illusion of safety than a reality.

take away the firearms/make them illegal, and the only people who will have them are criminals.


i'll keep my right to bear arms, kthx.




R.I.P. Brian St.Germain


you know, i love when people like to criticize others about their behavior,
but turn around and do the same freaking thing months later...

lilbit01 wrote:take away the firearms/make them illegal, and the only people who will have them are criminals.

x2131235923456234

Gun control of any kind, by definition, is a law. Criminals, by definition, are people who don't obey laws. So passing more and more laws to restrict gun ownership, constitutional issues aside, will only regulate those that are inclined to follow the law.






09:f9:11:02:9d:74:e3:5b:d8:41:56:c5:63

^^^

But the only thing is (I know I know) its unconstituational.

Personally, I don't care. I like hunting a little, but then again, I live(d) in rural Minnesota, so no real worry about gang related violence.

It seems to me (and this is just my observation) is that the primary problem occurs in more urban settings (more people=more crime) so why couldn't individual areas pass ordinances baning guns from areas (like say, anywhere outside of a persons home). I know I'm kind of being a little hypocritical suggesting that, but that way it isn't consitunal to not own a gun, you just can't carry it, or something to that effect.



IMO, this is one of those things that should be paid attention too, not becuase it is a big deal, but becuase it seems to me that its more of a principal thing. Think about it, they encroach on your right to bear arms, the next thing you know their breaking up peace rallys and shutting down the presses. Granted its a strech, but its entirely possible.

i believe that there is a country, either south africa or australia, where owning a gun is illegal. criminals have the guns. and the criminals control a situation with the weapon. criminals win because the law abiding citizen can not defend itself.

dont take a knife into a gun battle, unless you can throw it like a ninja.

great way of putting it.




R.I.P. Brian St.Germain


you know, i love when people like to criticize others about their behavior,
but turn around and do the same freaking thing months later...

i went austrailia about 6 years ago, and its true, there are laws saying guns are illegal but everytime i turned on the news someone was getting shot, or
some rancher was takin to jail for still owning one. i dont even remember seeing the standard "beat" police officer carrying one even though i am pretty sure they did. i am sure it would suck to be a police man and having someone shoot at you and all you have is pepper spray and a night stick.

JimmyZ wrote:

lilbit01 wrote:take away the firearms/make them illegal, and the only people who will have them are criminals.

x2131235923456234

Gun control of any kind, by definition, is a law. Criminals, by definition, are people who don't obey laws. So passing more and more laws to restrict gun ownership, constitutional issues aside, will only regulate those that are inclined to follow the law.

And, Jimmy, You oughtta know that by having the law, it empowers those whose job it is enforce the law the accord and authority to do so upon those who do not follow the law. Law is there to protect those who follow it (at least in a society that believes in ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia).

I do not believe that I am the only person in the western hemisphere that wants to see another Ruby Ridge or Waco happen again. Regardless of the initial reasons, those people believed that they had unrestricted rights to any weapons they wanted and were empowered to use them in defence against those who might hurt them, irrational as they were.

Basically, I don't think joe average has the right to own military-grade ordinance simply for protection, and I believe that in a society in which the 2nd ammendment was written (ie, one that had few if any police forces, and limited avenues of redress of grievances, as well as single-shot muskets), the premise was sound, but future application was at best myopic. As much as I believe in gun laws, I also know that they're mostly useful only after the fact. Put it this way... if you really and honestly believe a well-armed society is a polite society, have yourself a trot down main street Kabul and let me know how polite everyone is.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

^ that's the reply of a Canadian that has to deal with gun control



Gilles
2.3 Ho

This made me giggle

Jeremy Knox wrote:I believe in gun rights, but at the same time a lot of gun right supporters creep me out. They come off like paranoid lunatics who want the unquestioned permission by all to be armed to the teeth 24/7; and to hear them talk you'd think that they've never felt safe a day in their lives unless they were armed. This is where I part ways with them. Your first and foremost weapon is yourself. If you're afraid all the time (Or "wary" as they would say.), it doesn't matter how many guns you have, you'll be useless in a real fight.

Gun owners are no more afraid than you are, they are more prepared though. That's like saying that people who wear seat-belts are more scared to drive. You are also throwing most gun owners into one group. Believe me, there are all kinds of gun owners.

Jeremy Knox wrote:A gun is to personal defense what an SUV is to car crashes. It might help, but most times it makes no difference and in some rare situations it actually makes things a lot worse. It's more an illusion of safety than a reality.

No, it's no illusion. If you are train with your gun you are safer than someone who has no gun or training. Ask yourself this, if you woke up to the sound of someone breaking into your house would you feel safer with or without a gun? Again, the gun is like a seat-belt. If used properly, it can save your life.

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:But the only thing is (I know I know) its unconstituational.

What is unconstitutional? You also say it's merely a minor flaw.

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:Personally, I don't care. I like hunting a little, but then again, I live(d) in rural Minnesota, so no real worry about gang related violence.

Do you think you there were just as many guns per capita in rural Minnesota as there were in the city? It is probably about the same, yet one has more crime. I wonder why that is? This can't be the case if guns = crime.

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:It seems to me (and this is just my observation) is that the primary problem occurs in more urban settings (more people=more crime) so why couldn't individual areas pass ordinances baning guns from areas (like say, anywhere outside of a persons home). I know I'm kind of being a little hypocritical suggesting that, but that way it isn't consitunal to not own a gun, you just can't carry it, or something to that effect.

You say that more people = more crime and then you say that people should have to keep guns in there homes. This would not decrease the number of people and therefore, according to your logic, crime would stay the same.

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:IMO, this is one of those things that should be paid attention too, not becuase it is a big deal, but becuase it seems to me that its more of a principal thing.

It is both an issue of principles and basic human rights. The constitution is the set of principles that our whole nation was formed around. The founding fathers felt strongly about this issue, remember, they had just gone through a revolution. The right to self-defense is also a basic human right in my opinion. I do believe in some gun control, like stopping criminals from purchasing guns. I do think that every law abiding citizen should be able to own and carry a gun though. Can you tell me how that increases crime? Am I a bad or irresponsible person for carrying a loaded firearm?

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote: Think about it, they encroach on your right to bear arms, the next thing you know their breaking up peace rallys and shutting down the presses. Granted its a strech, but its entirely possible.

It was also a stretch to believe that our government would allow the torture of prisoners and kill habeas corpus or launch a preemptive strike against a country that posed almost no threat to us. @!#$ happens and you never know. It really don't even matter if they take it any further, taking away the 2A would be an unforgivable offence. Unconstitutional restrictions are already imposed upon it.

Jeremy Knox wrote:This made me giggle

It made me giggle too, what a pathetic argument. The NRA might Believe that and it may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. Most criminals aren't "heavily-armed". The shoot out in Hollywood was the exception. most criminals carry one pistol and attack a handful of people. This could easily be done with a large knife or sword. Or the criminal could simply run the victim over in a car. The gun didn't bring violence to the world, it's been here since the beginning of time. It has also been proven that criminals prey on the weak and defenseless. Who would you rather do up against, an unarmed man who have only his hands to defend himself or a well trained man armed with a knife and a gun? New york city is basically a "gun free zone", 'nuff said.

HERE is a link to the "Bull$h!t" episode about gun control. Not the best source for investigative journalism, but at least it's entertaining.

It's obvious that I feel differently than you. As a matter of fact I often carry a gun on my person. I do not do it because I am paranoid or feel more manly when carrying, I do it because I do realise that there is a small chance that I may be attacked. How is this precaution any different than wearing a seat-belt? I sincerely hope that you investigate this issue a little further and study both sides of the argument.

Taken from another post:

State - Violent crime per 100,000 in 2004

California: 552
Illinois: 543
Massachusetts: 458
New Jersey: 356
New York: 441
District of Columbia: 1,371

not much gun control:

Alaska: 635 open carry w/o a permit.
Oregon: 298 Can carry in schools!
Vermont 112 No gun control laws!
Virgina: 276 carry w/o a permit.
Montana: 294 Open carry w/o a permit.
South Dakota: 171.5 Open carry w/o a permit.

Out of these states here is the breakdown of violent crime per capita from most to least:

1.GC DC
2.GR AK
3.GC CA
4.GC IL
5.GC MA
6.GC NY
7.GC NJ
8.GR OR
9.GR MO
10.GR VA
11. GR SD
12.GR VT
GC= Gun Control GR= Gun Rights

Obviously gun control laws do not work. If you had a gun would you commit a crime just because you have it? If you were going to go kill someone would you worry about gun laws? Nope. It comes down to the people not the guns! If guns kill then spoons eat.



_________________________________________________________________
-There is no such thing as objective journalism, there never was.
-The government is best which governs least.
-The forefathers were not necessarily right.
-Religion breeds self-righteousness.
-Ignoring problems rarely fixes them.
-All men are CREATED equal.
-We DO legislate morality.
-Justice does not exist.
-Rely only on yourself.
-Legalize marijuana.
-Gun control kills!

GAM------The MAJORITY of the state of TEXAS is an extremely well armed "society" and you don't see the streets looking like downtown Kabul. I agree with most of your comments but that was just dumb. An even better example to prove your little Kabul theory wrong is the fact that California has the hardest gun laws but yet the number of people being killed with firearms there is amoung the highest in the nation???? SO ......strict gun laws equal peace and love???? WRONG. I'll keep my semi auto sk, my 500 pump along with my other high powered rifles thank you. No im not scared of anyone nor do I rob people, I hunt and shoot for fun. Shame on me!!!

bigj480 wrote:

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:But the only thing is (I know I know) its unconstituational.

What is unconstitutional? You also say it's merely a minor flaw.

If you would have read a little closer, you would have seen that I was responding to JimmyZ's comment

bigj480 wrote:

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:Personally, I don't care. I like hunting a little, but then again, I live(d) in rural Minnesota, so no real worry about gang related violence.

Do you think you there were just as many guns per capita in rural Minnesota as there were in the city? It is probably about the same, yet one has more crime. I wonder why that is? This can't be the case if guns = crime.

bigj480 wrote:

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:It seems to me (and this is just my observation) is that the primary problem occurs in more urban settings (more people=more crime) so why couldn't individual areas pass ordinances baning guns from areas (like say, anywhere outside of a persons home). I know I'm kind of being a little hypocritical suggesting that, but that way it isn't consitunal to not own a gun, you just can't carry it, or something to that effect.

You say that more people = more crime and then you say that people should have to keep guns in there homes. This would not decrease the number of people and therefore, according to your logic, crime would stay the same.

What does the decrease in population have to do with gun control. I said that it could be possible for individual areas to pass and ordinance or some sort of law that would restrict the ability to carry a fire arm outside of a persons home.

Or better yet, ban gun shops from urban centers over a certan population or over a certian level of crime. It's about restricing the ability to prevent crime.

bigj480 wrote:

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote:IMO, this is one of those things that should be paid attention too, not becuase it is a big deal, but becuase it seems to me that its more of a principal thing.

It is both an issue of principles and basic human rights. The constitution is the set of principles that our whole nation was formed around. The founding fathers felt strongly about this issue, remember, they had just gone through a revolution. The right to self-defense is also a basic human right in my opinion. I do believe in some gun control, like stopping criminals from purchasing guns. I do think that every law abiding citizen should be able to own and carry a gun though. Can you tell me how that increases crime? Am I a bad or irresponsible person for carrying a loaded firearm?

When did I say that you were irresponsible? Don't take my opinion as a personal attack. Thats why I put IMO (In My Opinion).

But I must admit, the 2nd Ammendment is the only ammendment that hasn't necessarly been needed over the course of time. I do not dissagree that law abiding citizens should be able to own and use firearms, but my concern is when people have a bad day and decide to be a vigilante when someone cuts them off on the freeway. As much as this sounds like an extreme, it could and probably has happened

bigj480 wrote:

Adam Asmus AKA Smus...unique I know wrote: Think about it, they encroach on your right to bear arms, the next thing you know their breaking up peace rallys and shutting down the presses. Granted its a strech, but its entirely possible.

It was also a stretch to believe that our government would allow the torture of prisoners and kill habeas corpus or launch a preemptive strike against a country that posed almost no threat to us. @!#$ happens and you never know. It really don't even matter if they take it any further, taking away the 2A would be an unforgivable offence. Unconstitutional restrictions are already imposed upon it.

Thats what I was referring to. If they would be allowed to so openly deny the 2nd ammendment, it would only open the door to more restrictions.

bigj480 wrote:

Jeremy Knox wrote:This made me giggle

It made me giggle too, what a pathetic argument. The NRA might Believe that and it may or may not be true, but it doesn't matter. Most criminals aren't "heavily-armed". The shoot out in Hollywood was the exception. most criminals carry one pistol and attack a handful of people. This could easily be done with a large knife or sword. Or the criminal could simply run the victim over in a car. The gun didn't bring violence to the world, it's been here since the beginning of time. It has also been proven that criminals prey on the weak and defenseless. Who would you rather do up against, an unarmed man who have only his hands to defend himself or a well trained man armed with a knife and a gun? New york city is basically a "gun free zone", 'nuff said.

Umm...I posted that

Thanks for the credit

bigj480 wrote:It's obvious that I feel differently than you. As a matter of fact I often carry a gun on my person. I do not do it because I am paranoid or feel more manly when carrying, I do it because I do realise that there is a small chance that I may be attacked. How is this precaution any different than wearing a seat-belt? I sincerely hope that you investigate this issue a little further and study both sides of the argument.

Wow...I was simply putting out my opinion, I played devils advocate. And I don't believe in my post at all I said I was for gun control. As for carrying a loaded fire arm. It still seems like over kill. I don't know where you live or any past expierences, but IMO, there is no need to carry a fire arm on you unless you know that there is a high percentage (20%+) of being attacked. Not only that, but think of the chances of you being killed if you pull a gun on someone else that has theirs out.

Also, I hope you are an expert marksman. Reason being, if you get into a fire fight with some random gang member who tried to mug you, can you be completely confident that there will be no extra people being dragged into your conflict?

I guess I would have to say, leave the policing to the police

bigj480 wrote:
Obviously gun control laws do not work. If you had a gun would you commit a crime just because you have it? If you were going to go kill someone would you worry about gun laws? Nope. It comes down to the people not the guns! If guns kill then spoons eat.

Where did you get those facts? Or could you link us to the thread where that was posted?

I will agree that it DOES come down to people, not the wepons. But the ease that those people can get the things they need is the issue. Not the control of the wepons. Hell, this weekend I'm going Pheasnt hunting with my dad.

As for the whole, commit the crime becuase you hae the gun, argument. It would make it a hell of a lot easier.

I'm not trying to egg you on, but you need to look at it with other opinions in mind. To come out and say, "All gun control is bad, becuase I carry a gun and I don't commit crimes," doesn't work. You may be the majority of gun owners, but the rest of the weponless public needs to be protected from the minority of gun owners.

It's about protection, not restriction.

Wiezer Walley wrote:GAM------The MAJORITY of the state of TEXAS is an extremely well armed "society" and you don't see the streets looking like downtown Kabul. I agree with most of your comments but that was just dumb. An even better example to prove your little Kabul theory wrong is the fact that California has the hardest gun laws but yet the number of people being killed with firearms there is amoung the highest in the nation???? SO ......strict gun laws equal peace and love???? WRONG. I'll keep my semi auto sk, my 500 pump along with my other high powered rifles thank you. No im not scared of anyone nor do I rob people, I hunt and shoot for fun. Shame on me!!!

First: you took the comment WAY out of context.
Second: Afghanistan is a gun culture gone berserk... it's not unusual to settle petty feuds with an AK47, and it's a rite of manhood to get your first weapon, and there are more expert weaponsmiths in Afghanistan than there is in the USA, think about that for a minute.
Third: you're talking cantelopes to apples and oranges, you're comparing legal/illegal gun ownership, versus a necessity of life in a functionally lawless area. My point was that in Afghanistan, you have a weapon, or you're basically dead... in the USA, you have police that are charged with protecting the public at large or at the very least, to serve the public trust.

BigJ:
Those lists are not only funded by the NRA, they're unscientific. If you have any laws concerning the ownership, posession and use of firearms, it's technically Gun Control. The NRA used their biased values to determine what state was Gun Control, and which was Gun Rights. Ipso facto: you have gun rights in the Constitution, and you have State's rights. The balance comes with the 14th ammendment, because for some reason the law of the union is not the law of the land.

anyhow...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_cities_by_crime_rate <-- More pertinent link.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/index.html <-- Actual scientific reporting, according to the information released (there isn't any UCR data for 2005 that I've found yet) the south has about 36% of the population of the USA, and over 40% of the violent crimes (assume that 23% of crimes are committed with firearms).

I usually say it's best to go to source when you're looking for data, or at least have referenced and linked information, I really advise against using JBO links, they're not usually based on anything approaching reality because there's nothing at stake other than making a point.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

[quote=GAM (The Kilted One) in the USA, you have police that are charged with protecting the public at large or at the very least, to serve the public trust.



however, in the USA when you call the cops because someone broke into your home, by the time the police show up your already dead/raped or both. the only effective way to ensure your safety is to be proactive, a security system linked to the police is a start, but its too slow. realistically the only way to properly protect yourself is to have a plan, and a method of self defense, and the best method of defense is a firearm, training, and running home defense drills.

ive said it before, and i'll say it again....."when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"








You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)

I can see what you're talking about, but, there ARE other ways of protecting yourself before the fact.

Outlaws would have weapons no matter what.




Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

yes, there are other optins than shooting someone. even if someone breaks into my apartment, shooting him is my last choice, id rather hold him at gunpoint till the cops show up.

I'll use myself for an example. in my apartment, my only defense against an intruder is keeping the doors and windows locked. all that will do is slow down the determined criminal.....i know that, and thats why i keep my gun accessable to me. i know that the sounds of a break in will wake me, but a locked door will stop nobody who really wants in, and by the time the neighbors call the cops, its too late. so i know that my defense comes down to my abilities...and im a terrible fighter, so that leaves me with one option, i need a way to give myself an edge in a survival situation, and a gun is a force multiplier.

now im not saying everyone should have a gun.....theres lots of people who should not have a gun. but i think eveyone should be born with a clean slate for gun ownership, then based on thier actions, they can lose that right to ownership

and i understand that there are other options than a gun......a taser for instance. but mabey it was how i was raised, or what i have seen in my life, but if someone breaks into my home intending to injure me and steal my stuff, then I think they don't deserve to live







You'll never touch God's hand
You'll never taste God's breath
Because you'll never see the second coming
Life's too short to be focused on insanity
I've seen the ways of God
I'll take the devil any day
Hail Satan

(slayer, skeleton christ, 2006)

Amen^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

mikec2003 almost hit ti on the head there. i will come out upon hearing something with a bat or knife but if i am pushed back and fear my life buckshot is my answer to the push. i dont live in the best part of town, but i sure wouldn't consider it the worst but this year alone there have been a few break ins and 2 morders, now granted me neighborhood is quite large, and its mostly teenage kids out for kicks but i feel i will make them leave by scareing them, if they dont by holding them till the cops show, or if i feel like its life or death (i hope to never be there) ground checking them. but i live in a gun rights state, and there are laws in legislator here to make it even more lax. honestly some of them scare me but i dont believe those to go through. every gun i ever bought i bought for sport use (hunting and target shooting), i never bought no for defense, those that do without a reason scare me.

The simple saying " Guns dont kill people, people kill people", is one of the best sayings ever. Whether with a gun, a car, a knife, or thier own bare hands, if someone wants to kill someone they will find a way.

At least let the victims that are killed the ability to die from probably the least painless ways. I know it might be a sick way at looking at it, but I would much rather be murdered by a gunshot than any other way I can think of.

I've seen a gsw victim live for 12 days in utter agony after having a .22 round from a zip gun buried in his back, before finally dying in a morphine induced coma.

If you think you just up and die after getting shot, or that it doesn't hurt, you need to stop believing movies and TV. Unless it vaporises your brain, you feel excrutiating pain from the massive and invasive trauma inflicted. What kills you is shock, and that still only stops your breathing so you then you have more pain from enzymatic process because you're suffocating.

If I have to die from a gunshot wound, I'd like it in the back of the head from a really huge shotgun.... preferably when I'm 115 years old... only after satisfying my 25 year old gorgeous blonde chick lover for the 45th time that hour, and my self for the 15th time that day (TAKE THAT QBE!)... and being discovered by her jealous and vengeful husband who happened to be shotgun whale hunting that morning.

Thats about the only time I could say I'd want to die from a gunshot wound.





Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Death from any wound sucks.

Personally, if we don't need guns because there's law enforcement to protect us, then you need to get the populace to trust law enforcement, or rather the government that employs them.

Personally, i have less to fear from outlaws than i do the government.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.

I'd say its about even odds.



Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

I disagree: Look at who we have in office right now here in the states...

Just my opinion, though.


Goodbye Callisto & Skaði, Hello Ishara:
2022 Kia Stinger GT2 AWD
The only thing every single person from every single walk of life on earth can truly say
they have in common is that their country is run by a bunch of fargin iceholes.