Let's talk about guns [Archive] - Page 2 - Comic Book Resources Forums

K'Nort

03-21-2006, 10:37 AM

there is a big diff between using a keyboard + mouse or a system controler and using a life-like or real gun. point and click does not a marksman make

They have similar sports-type appeal though. It's a hand-eye coordination test. Before video games existed, target shooting was a way to have the same fun. The fact that there are now ways to do that without real guns doesn't automatically mean that people who still prefer the old-fashioned way have sinister or psycho motives. And you don't earn college scholarships and a shot at the Olympics by playing video games. Europeans weren't protesting the biathalon in Turino. They recognized that there are harmless recreational contexts.

The Watcher

03-21-2006, 10:38 AM

Yes, because two people in love = weapon for killingActually, it goes more A legitimate right = A legitimate right. At least that's what I read Blair as saying.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:39 AM

They have similar sports-type appeal though. It's a hand-eye coordination test. Before video games existed, target shooting was a way to have the same fun. The fact that there are now ways to do that without real guns doesn't automatically mean that people who still prefer the old-fashioned way have sinister or psycho motives. And you don't earn college scholarships and a shot at the Olympics by playing video games. Europeans weren't protesting the biathalon in Turino. They recognized that there are harmless recreational contexts.
No-one's answered my point about why a similar alternative appartus isn't used?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:39 AM

there is a big diff between using a keyboard + mouse or a system controler and using a life-like or real gun. point and click does not a marksman make

I am both a gamer and a marksman.

According to Hillary Clinton, games have desensitised me to real life violence. I now apparently have a taste for blood, and some "bad ideas".

According to Gaz, I have been "practicing to kill" for years now.

Does this make me some kind of evil killer person? Badass!

K'Nort

03-21-2006, 10:39 AM

No-one's answered my point about why a similar alternative appartus isn't used?

Well I just don't understand the question.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:40 AM

Well I just don't understand the question.
Why use bullets for this harmless sport?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:41 AM

No-one's answered my point about why a similar alternative appartus isn't used?

Gaz, there's nothing that does simulate the ballistic properties of a bullet moving at several thousand feet per second, so it's a moot point.

Winslow

03-21-2006, 10:41 AM

They recognized that there are harmless recreational contexts.

True.

I have no qualms about my son shooting a .22 at a range.

I don't let him blow up people in video games.

darkkeeperjr

03-21-2006, 10:42 AM

I feel sorry for the old man. for 5 years he had to be harressed by thet family next door. how many times did he tell that damn kid to stay the hell off his lawn? you think that kid didn't know the old man was crazy?

Now the old man is in jail. as he should be, crazy old fu*ker as he is. but i wonder how many times did he tell that kid to stay off his lawn.

that's how you play devil's advocate

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:43 AM

Gaz, there's nothing that does simulate the ballistic properties of a bullet moving at several thousand feet per second, so it's a moot point.
And a fencing foil is not the same as a weapon that was used in real duels. Doesn't make it less challenging.

The Watcher

03-21-2006, 10:43 AM

Absolutly.

Thats 30,000 people dead when they could be alive
Thats 30,000 families not torn apart by the fact that someone they loved isn't lying in a pool of blood.

This isn't some mythical statistic about probabilities or possibilities, its fact.

30,000 people dead.

Every year.

Now, will removal of guns increase or decrease this figure. I dunno.

Which do people prefer? A guarenteed death toll, or maybe trying to do something to get that number down a touch?That same arguement, with changes to the number of people dead, could be also used to ban any number of things, from cars to tobacco to alchohol.

Still not a legitimate reason by itself to ban something that millions of citizens have a legitimate use for.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:44 AM

True.

I have no qualms about my son shooting a .22 at a range.

I don't let him blow up people in video games.
Wow. I assume that superhero comics are a no-no also?

thehod

03-21-2006, 10:44 AM

I can't see any harm in the pastime of shooting.

I don't think its training anyone to be killers, any more than me playing Call of Duty, and if I shoot in real life like I do in that, no-one should ever let me near a real gun.

Whats the need to take the gun off the range though?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:44 AM

And a fencing foil is not the same as a weapon that was used in real duels. Doesn't make it less challenging.

Indeed, but fencing foil accurately simulates handling a sword, there is nothing that properly simulates long range target shooting.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:45 AM

Wow. I assume that superhero comics are a no-no also?

Dude, it's Winslow's kid...

TinMan

03-21-2006, 10:45 AM

Because a gun, used for it's purpose, results in death. A car, used for it's purpose, results in you being somewhere you weren't.

Ok, so by this stupid ass logic we should also ban yo-yo's, javelins, and bows because by their designed purpose they are meant as weapons.

I can't understand this. Guns, yes, were originally created as weapons and more effective ways to fight wars. But they've always been given other purposes; hunting for food and target shooting are the two major ones.

A car was created to get you from point A to B, beinign enough yes, but put some alcohol in the driver, or maybe they're crazy like the guy that blew the kid away, and something that wasn't originally designed for a heinous purpose becomes one.

My father owns like 10 guns, but he's never shot anyone. Just because you own a gun doesn't mean you have to kill someone, just like driving a car doesn't mean you have to drive properly all the time. Its up to the individual to use it in a responsible manner.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:45 AM

That same arguement, with changes to the number of people dead, could be also used to ban any number of things, from cars to tobacco to alchohol.

Still not a legitimate reason by itself to ban something that millions of citizens have a legitimate use for.
Cars, no. Legit use is not death. Alcohol, yes an argument. Same argument used to actually ban cannabis/marijuana. Tobacco? What DOES that do, bar kill you slowly?

Winslow

03-21-2006, 10:46 AM

Wow. I assume that superhero comics are a no-no also?

Non-sequitur . . .

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:47 AM

Whats the need to take the gun off the range though?
To mantain the rifle. Rifles need mantinence.

If I want to change out the bolt assembly on my Remington700, I should be able to do it using the facilities I have at home.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:47 AM

Indeed, but fencing foil accurately simulates handling a sword, there is nothing that properly simulates long range target shooting.
You've never held a sword have you? A fencing blade is much lighter than a combat blade.

thehod

03-21-2006, 10:47 AM

That same arguement, with changes to the number of people dead, could be also used to ban any number of things, from cars to tobacco to alchohol.

Still not a legitimate reason by itself to ban something that millions of citizens have a legitimate use for.

Agree.

I would like to see far stiffer sentances for those who cause death by dangerous driving.

and although I'm know the situation with second hand smoking, the whole thing with tobacco is an individuals choice. A little trickier that one.

So are we saying that 30,000 lives is an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership?

TinMan

03-21-2006, 10:48 AM

No-one's answered my point about why a similar alternative appartus isn't used?

Because there isn't one! The only way to simulate a chunk of metal flying out of a steel barrel is to *gasp* fire a chunk of metal out of a steel barrel!

The physics are not the same, there is a lot more to target shooting (or shooting any gun well for that matter) than just point and pull.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:48 AM

Cars, no. Legit use is not death. Alcohol, yes an argument. Same argument used to actually ban cannabis/marijuana. Tobacco? What DOES that do, bar kill you slowly?

DO you see the value in anything man? Although I don't smoke, I know that for some people it takes the edge off.

Horses for courses.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:48 AM

Non-sequitur . . .
Fantasy violence, people getting injured/killed. It was a genuine question, btw, related to the video game thing.

thehod

03-21-2006, 10:49 AM

To mantain the rifle. Rifles need mantinence.

If I want to change out the bolt assembly on my Remington700, I should be able to do it using the facilities I have at home.

Get better facilities at a gun club, or a range. Problem solved, and the guns stay in the safest possible environment.

If we are to accept gun ownership in the UK (and elsewhere I suppose) the gun owners are going to have to give a little as well.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:50 AM

DO you see the value in anything man? Although I don't smoke, I know that for some people it takes the edge off.

Horses for courses.
I thought you were anti drugs?

(And my dad and gran died of smoking related conditions. Her of lung cancer, specifically.)

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:51 AM

Get better facilities at a gun club, or a range. Problem solved, and the guns stay in the safest possible environment.
A few months ago, some rifles were stolen from a shooting range in England. If you centralise the storage of guns, it means that they are more likely to be stolen.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 10:51 AM

Are you saying I'm "practicing to kill"? Am I also "practicing to kill" when I play Ghost Recon?

Neither are "practice" it's sport (shooting) and art (Ghost Recon) respectivley.So, you leave your guns at the range when you leave? Because if that is the place that you practice your "sport," you don't need them at home.

Ed Cunard

03-21-2006, 10:53 AM

Gaz, there's nothing that does simulate the ballistic properties of a bullet moving at several thousand feet per second, so it's a moot point.

Gaz, Blair has a point. If you want to list paintball as an example of an alternative, it doesn't fly. Forgetting the difference in the force of the ejection (bullets are obviously faster than paintballs considering the firing methods), they're not similar in terms of how they fire.

Here's a visual representation:

Paintballs: http://www.skirmishpaintballasia.com/images/paintball_light-pink.gif

Random Bullet: http://www.gunthorp.com/images/bullets%20favorites.jpg

Even if you disregard the aerodynamics of the form (which are partially impacted by the force of ejection), you have to take into account the pliability of paintballs--they warp in the air before they reach their targets and explode. Their lack of density also makes them more susceptible to conditions like wind. They're simply not accurate enough for competitive target shooting.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:53 AM

I thought you were anti drugs?
Nope. I wouldn't smoke personally, and I don't approve of drugs, but it doesn't mean to say that I think hash/weed/the bomb/the black/the bhudda/the sweet Mary Jane/ the puff/the blow/whatever should be criminalised.

(And my dad and gran died of smoking related conditions. Her of lung cancer, specifically.)
Same here (my grandfather, not my Dad)...Although he also worked in a mining pit so that might have contributed.

thehod

03-21-2006, 10:54 AM

A few months ago, some rifles were stolen from a shooting range in England. If you centralise the storage of guns, it means that they are more likely to be stolen.

Get better security.

Come on Blair, this isn't rocket science here.

Its clear that in the UK the shooting fraternaty are falsely vilafied and grossly underfunded, so if we are going to go the route of allowing gun ownership for use at clubs we need to make sure our clubs are like fort bloody knox, and put down harsh sentances for those who would flaunt those rules. The shooting fraternaty need to work with those who have concerns over this issue, rather than standing on the sidelines crying "But its sooooooo unfair."

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:55 AM

So, you leave your guns at the range when you leave? Because if that is the place that you practice your "sport," you don't need them at home.

Why do you put "sport" in quotes? Just because you don't see it as a sport doesn't make it so. The world does not revolve around you.

And I do need my guns at home. Regular mantinence and all that.

Horses for courses, man.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:55 AM

Gaz, Blair has a point. If you want to list paintball as an example of an alternative, it doesn't fly. Forgetting the difference in the force of the ejection (bullets are obviously faster than paintballs considering the firing methods), they're not similar in terms of how they fire.

Here's a visual representation:

Paintballs: http://www.skirmishpaintballasia.com/images/paintball_light-pink.gif

Random Bullet: http://www.gunthorp.com/images/bullets%20favorites.jpg

Even if you disregard the aerodynamics of the form (which are partially impacted by the force of ejection), you have to take into account the pliability of paintballs--they warp in the air before they reach their targets and explode. Their lack of density also makes them more susceptible to conditions like wind. They're simply not accurate enough for competitive target shooting.

So my example was sucky, and that renders the general point moot?

I didn't mean "replace them with paintballs" I mean "replce with something that won't kill someone in the way". I just used a readily occuring example.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:56 AM

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:56 AM

So my example was sucky, and that renders the general point moot?

I didn't mean "replace them with paintballs" I mean "replce with something that won't kill someone in the way". I just used a readily occuring example.
I don't see anybody offering up any "non lethal" alternatives.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 10:57 AM

Actually, it goes more A legitimate right = A legitimate right. At least that's what I read Blair as saying.Fine, so you have the right to keep and bear arms. You don't have the right to fire them. I suppose you guys would be fine with that?

The Watcher

03-21-2006, 10:57 AM

Cars, no. Legit use is not death. Alcohol, yes an argument. Same argument used to actually ban cannabis/marijuana. Tobacco? What DOES that do, bar kill you slowly?What I was replying to did not base the arguement on legitimate use to ban something. The post in question made a case for banning guns solely by the deaths that could be attributed to them.

And I actually think the ban on cannabis/marijuana should be dropped.

Lots of things cause plenty of deaths. That alone is no reason to ban them when people put them to legitimate uses. And guns have legitimate uses. It doesn't matter that they're designed to inflict harm and/or death. There are legitimate reasons for people to have tools with such capabilities.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:57 AM

Snooker is a "sport".
It's not the gun, it's the lack of physicality.
Dude, that's like saying gay men have "sex".
Or people who use hybrid cars "drive".

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:58 AM

I don't see anybody offering up any "non lethal" alternatives.
Which I pointed out. No-one's tried. If it's just sport, why not make it as safe as possible?

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:59 AM

Dude, that's like saying gay men have "sex".
Or people who use hybrid cars "drive".
No, it isn't.

Driving is operating a motorised vehicle. And sex can refer to a whole gamut of activity, including that which you're thinking of.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 10:59 AM

Get better security.

Come on Blair, this isn't rocket science here.

Its clear that in the UK the shooting fraternaty are falsely vilafied and grossly underfunded, so if we are going to go the route of allowing gun ownership for use at clubs we need to make sure our clubs are like fort bloody knox, and put down harsh sentances for those who would flaunt those rules. The shooting fraternaty need to work with those who have concerns over this issue, rather than standing on the sidelines crying "But its sooooooo unfair."

Better security is a relative term as there will always be a charismatic master thief out there ready to avoid any of our fiendish security systems and devious traps. MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

But seriously, no security system is foolproof.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 10:59 AM

Fine, so you have the right to keep and bear arms. You don't have the right to fire them. I suppose you guys would be fine with that?

Now you're just getting silly. If you're going to be prosecuted for firing the gun it wouldn't matter if you could own it or not. So this comment is utterly pointless and I'm sure intended to be extremely sarcastic.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 10:59 AM

Why do you put "sport" in quotes? Just because you don't see it as a sport doesn't make it so. The world does not revolve around you.

And I do need my guns at home. Regular mantinence and all that.

Horses for courses, man.No, the world doesn't revolve around me. But I am entitled to my opinions, and shooting a gun at a target is not sport, it is a hobby.

As to your second point. Then, you don't have ammunition at home do you?

Gaz

03-21-2006, 10:59 AM

Now you're just getting silly. If you're going to be prosecuted for firing the gun it wouldn't matter if you could own it or not. So this comment is utterly pointless and I'm sure intended to be extremely sarcastic.
Um, you can be, in most cities.

Tadhg

03-21-2006, 11:00 AM

And a fencing foil is not the same as a weapon that was used in real duels. Doesn't make it less challenging.

Yet you can injure/kill someone with a fencing foil just the same. Lots of sports/activities have risk to them.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:00 AM

Which I pointed out. No-one's tried. If it's just sport, why not make it as safe as possible?

Yes they have. The US army has the MILES laser system that they use for traning.

It sucks.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:00 AM

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:01 AM

As to your second point. Then, you don't have ammunition at home do you?
Not just now, no.

Puma

03-21-2006, 11:01 AM

as a gun owner I say fine allow people to legally own guns; just restrict the sale of ammunition.

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:01 AM

Better security is a relative term as there will always be a charismatic master thief out there ready to avoid any of our fiendish security systems and devious traps. MWAHAHAHAHAHAH!

But seriously, no security system is foolproof.

And Mr. Epicurus says the secret to happiness is to minimise possible exposure to pain. So tighter gun control (less chance of random gun deaths).

Sex laws protect who? Drug laws protect who? Who benefits?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:01 AM

No, it isn't.

Driving is operating a motorised vehicle. And sex can refer to a whole gamut of activity, including that which you're thinking of.
Exactly! And shooting is a legitimate sport. Not a "sport".

Gaz

03-21-2006, 11:02 AM

Yet you can injure/kill someone with a fencing foil just the same. Lots of sports/activities have risk to them.
Yes, but most try to minimise that factor.

Gaz

03-21-2006, 11:02 AM

Exactly! And shooting is a legitimate sport. Not a "sport".
It's a sport like poker, or pool is.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:03 AM

And Mr. Epicurus says the secret to happiness is to minimise possible exposure to pain. So tighter gun control (less chance of random gun deaths).

Tighter gun laws are by no means a guarentee of having fewer random gun deaths.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:03 AM

It's a sport like poker, or pool is.
Tell that to people who shoot in the Olympics.

You apparently don't see the value of much my friend. Which is especially strange for somebody who hasn't even shot a gun in his life.

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:04 AM

Tighter gun laws are by no means a guarentee of having fewer random gun deaths.

Why? An example?

The Watcher

03-21-2006, 11:04 AM

So are we saying that 30,000 lives is an acceptable price to pay for gun ownership?I'm going to shock you by actually saying yes. 30,000 lives is an acceptable price for any right, whether it be the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable search and seziure.

If someone told me the only way to keep any of those rights would be to engage in a conflict that would be guaranteed to kill 30,000 people, I would have no qualms of engaging in such a conflict rather than have such rights taken away.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:04 AM

Yes, but most try to minimise that factor.

And...we don't minimise this percieved risk in shooting?

Have you been to a shooting range?

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:04 AM

Um, you can be, in most cities.

There are laws in place that state that you will be penalized if you use a weapon in certain ways. But NEVER being able to fire a gun would make ownership of a gun pointless. You wouldn't be able to go to a range to shoot, shoot it in your backyard (if you live outside said city limits) or use it as a means of family protection. So saying, "you can have the gun, but only to look at" is stupid and impractical. You may as well just argue that they need to be banned rather than owning them is legal but you can't fire them.

west3man

03-21-2006, 11:05 AM

Tighter gun laws are by no means a guarentee of having fewer random gun deaths.
You don't think that's overstating?

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:05 AM

I'm going to shock you by actually saying yes. 30,000 lives is an acceptable price for any right, whether it be the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable search and seziure.

If someone told me the only way to keep any of those rights would be to engage in a conflict that would be guaranteed to kill 30,000 people, I would have no qualms of engaging in such a conflict rather than have such rights taken away.

Again why? Sure you shocked me. Now give me a reason.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:06 AM

Tighter gun laws are by no means a guarentee of having fewer random gun deaths.A law that says "no one can ever fire a gun again" would certainly guarantee fewer gun deaths.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:06 AM

Why? An example?
Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington DC
New York City

All have the tightest gun laws in the US. Look at their murder rates.

Now look at Florida: In Miami, carjacking used to be a trademark crime. Ever since they reformed the concealed carry laws to allow citizens to bear arms in their vehicles, the number of deaths during carjackings decreased.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:07 AM

A law that says "no one can ever fire a gun again" would certainly guarantee fewer gun deaths.

HAHAHAH! Because criminals value the law so much...

JeffreyWKramer

03-21-2006, 11:07 AM

A law that says "no one can ever fire a gun again" would certainly guarantee fewer gun deaths.

I dunno. "Thou shalt not kill" hasn't worked too hot.

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:07 AM

Los Angeles
Chicago
Washington DC
New York City

All have the tightest gun laws in the US. Look at their murder rates.

Now look at Florida: In Miami, carjacking used to be a trademark crime. Ever since they reformed the concealed carry laws to allow citizens to bear arms in their vehicles, the number of deaths during carjackings decreased.

Sweden. Norway. Germany. France. Huge population density. Less gun crime related death. Whys? (Yes folks I just made up a word :) )

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:07 AM

Collectors probably wouldn't care. ;)

Yes, but most "collectors" collect antique guns, NOT the new 50 cal. anti aircraft gun that just came out two years ago. People that are going to buy new guns most likely are not of the "collector" variety, they want to fire them. There are also plenty of collectors that do like to fire those old style guns, ever heard of muzzle loaders?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:07 AM

You don't think that's overstating?
Nope. Look at Switzerland for example. The gun death reate is more or less a non issue.

west3man

03-21-2006, 11:08 AM

I'm all for principles and ideals, but when balancing "rights" against "life," I'm the King of Qualms.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:08 AM

HAHAHAH! Because criminals value the law so much...Do you honestly believe that this man would have even OWNED a gun had this law existed? NO!!!!! That's 1 less death already.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:09 AM

Sweden. Norway. Germany. France. Huge population density. Less gun crime related death. Whys? (Yes folks I just made up a word :) )

Actually the gun laws in these countriues isn't all that strict. In Germany for example you can own an AR15. Oberland Arms in Germany makes a very nice civillian AR15 I might add. Maybe better than Colt or Bushmaster's versions.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:10 AM

Do you honestly believe that this man would have even OWNED a gun had this law existed? NO!!!!! That's 1 less death already.

That's fairly selective logic. What about the number of rapes and stuff that gun ownership prevents?

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:10 AM

Actually the gun laws in these countriues isn't all that strict. In Germany for example you can own an AR15. Oberland Arms in Germany makes a very nice civillian AR15 I might add. Maybe better than Colt or Bushmaster's versions.

Good to know. Why are less people dying?

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:11 AM

That's fairly selective logic. What about the number of rapes and stuff that gun ownership prevents?Or facilitates.

Winslow

03-21-2006, 11:11 AM

Fantasy violence, people getting injured/killed. It was a genuine question, btw, related to the video game thing.

One you pull a trigger and hit a target with a bullet (target shooting).*

One you push a button and blow up people (video games).

The third (comic books) involves fictionalized violence without "first-person" personal attachment. You don't decide who lives and dies in a comic book, nor do your actions affect the outcome.

The third reason does not relate to the first two, so it does not logically relate. That is, it's a non-sequitur.

If you want to start a thread about violence in comic books, and what's appropriate for a ten year old boy to read - I'll reply there . . . but i don't think there's a hard and set "rule." Every kid is different.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:11 AM

Good to know. Why are less people dying?
Cultural reasons, different methods of policing, the poverty gap being different, less ethnic tension, all sorts of reasons.

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:13 AM

Cultural reasons, different methods of policing, the poverty gap being different, less ethnic tension, all sorts of reasons.

Well huge ethnic tension actually, but lets not get into that. So guns have a different cultural value in these countries and therefore there is less gun death?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:14 AM

Well huge ethnic tension actually, but lets not get into that. So guns have a different cultural value in these countries and therefore there is less gun death?

It's not so much the guns themselves have a different cultural significance. It's perhaps more to do with the culture of those countries as a whole.

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:16 AM

It's not so much the guns themselves have a different cultural significance. It's perhaps more to do with the culture of those countries as a whole.

What they don't like killing so much? Surely how guns are perceived, how they relate to these different cultures is what we're talking about?

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:20 AM

It's not so much the guns themselves have a different cultural significance. It's perhaps more to do with the culture of those countries as a whole.

Great statement Blair.

This is exactly why I mentioned such a thing in one of my earlier posts. I'm sorry, but American culture sucks! In essence we don't have much anymore, for every decent, law abiding citizen, theres one that doesn't care about anyone but themselves or the law. Without the threat of gun ownership, I KNOW crime rates would escalate here. I've met people who would capitalize on just that sort of thing happening, people who don't care about anyone else or have any respect for others.

I've also known certain people that owned guns illegally, its not that hard for people to get ahold of them if you have the right connections. So all banning guns would really do is eliminate the fear of being shot when assulting or robbing someone.

The Watcher

03-21-2006, 11:21 AM

Again why? Sure you shocked me. Now give me a reason.I think our worldviews are so divergent I'm not sure I have the ability to successfully convey my reasons in a way that you would fully understand, but I'm going to give it a try.

Rights are not something that should be taken away from people simply because a minority abuse them in a way that cause harm. And the threat of deaths by itself should not be enough to force people relinquish them. If they could be taken away so easily, then they were never rights to begin with.

America was born in a Revolutionary War to secure these rights. There's no one I know who would say that it was a bad thing, even though people died in that conflict. I see no reason why if another hypothetical conflict were necessary to insure they were kept would be wrong, even if the death toll would be more than six times as much (the Revolutionary War only had 4,435 casualties). Preserving rights is worth much cost, even lives.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:22 AM

Enjoy guys:

FACT: While handguns account for only one-third of all firearms owned in the United States, they account for more than two-thirds of all firearm-related deaths each year. A gun in the home is 4 times more likely to be involved in an unintentional shooting, 7 times more likely to be used to commit a criminal assault or homicide, and 11 times more likely to be used to attempt or commit suicide than to be used in self-defense.

-A Kellerman, et al. Journal of Trauma, August 1998; Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu.Rev Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40.)

FACT: A gun in the home increases the risk of homicide of a household member by 3 times and the risk of suicide by 5 times compared to homes where no gun is present.

-Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:24 AM

Enjoy some more:

FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

Tobias March

03-21-2006, 11:25 AM

I think our worldviews are so divergent I'm not sure I have the ability to successfully convey my reasons in a way that you would fully understand, but I'm going to give it a try.

Rights are not something that should be taken away from people simply because a minority abuse them in a way that cause harm. And the threat of deaths by itself should not be enough to force people relinquish them. If they could be taken away so easily, then they were never rights to begin with.

America was born in a Revolutionary War to secure these rights. There's no one I know who would say that it was a bad thing, even though people died in that conflict. I see know reason why if another hypothetical conflict were necessary to insure they were kept would be wrong, even if the death toll would be more than six times as much (the Revolutionary War only had 4,435 casualties). Preserving rights is worth much cost, even lives.

Perhaps we do see the world differently, but there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to understand what you mean. Your ancestors fought a war to gain independence from a foreign power. Now you live in a society that has evolved into a world power. Is your status as a citizen the same as that of your ancestors?

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:27 AM

Here's two more:

FACT: Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

FACT: Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.

- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)

macul

03-21-2006, 11:27 AM

Brian Defferding, don't bite. It's the same ol same ol regarding this topic. Just walk away.

Of course, though, you're new here and probably haven't seen the dozens of times before when we've hashed out these very same point over and over and over again.

EDIT: Oh! to clarify, I'm on YOUR side.

I'm just too exhausted to have to repeat myself for the one hundredth time again.

I'm with Dread. I've tired of having people attack me for obeying the law and exercising my Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:28 AM

Enjoy guys:
Actually, that statistic about the gun being more likely to be employed in an "unintentional" killing is flawed.

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgaga.html

It's a well known myth, sorry.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 11:29 AM

Another good one:

FACT: As of 1994, 44 million Americans owned more than 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25% of adults owned firearms. Seventy-four percent (74%) of gun owners possessed two or more firearms.

- National Institute of Justice, May 1997

FACT: Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 2003, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 30,136.

- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics WISQARS online data collection system, 2006.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:30 AM

handguns murdered
Is a handgun capable of intent or reasoning? Is it capable of mens rea?
If not then a handgun "murdering" somebody is impossible.

The Watcher

03-21-2006, 11:30 AM

Perhaps we do see the world differently, but there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to understand what you mean. Your ancestors fought a war to gain independence from a foreign power. Now you live in a society that has evolved into a world power. Is your status as a citizen the same as that of your ancestors?See, the thing is I see these rights as fundemental and inalienable. The change in the status of my country in no way makes them less legitimate or relevant today than they were 200 years ago. They were worth killing and dying for then, and they're still worth paying that price if necessary for them now.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:31 AM

Another good one:
Again that's silly. 25% of adults "owned" firearms? That's likely to be 25% of adults purchased the firearms in their name. As far as I know around 50% of US households have at least 1 gun in them. Some of the guns I "own" aren't mine. They are my Dads as he paid for them.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:33 AM

Great statement Blair.

I think that's the first time somebody has ever agreed with me! (wipes tear from eye)

JeffreyWKramer

03-21-2006, 11:33 AM

People need to keep in mind the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Those who founded the US recognized that there is no ultimate guarantee against a government turning tyrannical and against the will of the people, and they further recognized that should such a thing occur, the only recourse of the people would be to overthrow that government by force, just as the colonists had won their freedom from unjust British rule via force. Everything else about private ownership of guns stems from that rule - the populace has the right to be armed in order to protect the freedom.

It's a radical idea still, but it's just as valid now - hell, given some practices of this Administration, I'd say it's currently *more* valid than usual - as it was when the nation formed.

gary bolt

03-21-2006, 11:38 AM

Is a handgun capable of intent or reasoning? Is it capable of mens rea?
If not then a handgun "murdering" somebody is impossible.

Impressive. It actually took 172 posts on this go around for that little nugget to get pulled out. Silly Huh?, "guns don't kill people - people kill people".

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:39 AM

Enjoy guys:

Of course most gun crimes are committed with a handgun, they're easier to conceal so you can take them elsewhere to shoot someone. Those statistics prove nothing, it does NOT say how many of those alleged deaths were caused by LEGAL or ILLEGAL guns. You cannot justify banning legal, registered weapons by illegal statistics, its extremely bad debate form.

The statistics for in home homicides don't level out considering your other examples. If only 25% of Americans own guns, then the statistics for in home homicides are gonna be lop sided because 75% of the American population doesn't own guns.

Statistics like these are written out to make one side of an arguement look right, but if you pay attention they neglect other variables that fall into play and cause such statistics to be uninformed and biased.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:40 AM

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:42 AM

Impressive. It actually took 172 posts on this go around for that little nugget to get pulled out. Silly Huh?, "guns don't kill people - people kill people".
Of course the little nugget of "murdered by handguns" came out first. I wonder where tha handgun's user was when the handgun "murdered" it's victim?

As a society, people need to learn that individuals are responsible for their actions, not inanimate objects.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:42 AM

I think that's the first time somebody has ever agreed with me! (wipes tear from eye)

HAHA! Dude, read my posts in this thread, I'm completely on your side.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:43 AM

Impressive. It actually took 172 posts on this go around for that little nugget to get pulled out. Silly Huh?, "guns don't kill people - people kill people".

No it didn't, I already said that on one of the first pages. Guess that just tells me how often people pay attention to what I have to say! :p

JeffreyWKramer

03-21-2006, 11:43 AM

HAHA! Dude, read my posts in this thread, I'm completely on your side.

Blair does have a well-known enjoyment of both hyperbole and martyrdom. ;)

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:47 AM

Enjoy some more:

Quote:
FACT: Comparison of U.S. gun homicides to other industrialized countries:
In 1998 (the most recent year for which this data has been compiled), handguns murdered:

373 people in Germany
151 people in Canada
57 people in Australia
19 people in Japan
54 people in England and Wales, and
11,789 people in the United States

Not that surprising really. The U.S. has a higher population than any of those countries. Therefore more crazies, more grudges and more weapons. Statistically I be we wouldn't be that bad. Thats also not taking into account that it wasn't until late 98 that the UK signed in the all out fire arm ban, since then the violent crime rate has risen. Whether or not is was all by handguns is irrelevent because people were less scared of being shot when mugging or burglarizing someone.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:48 AM

Blair does have a well-known enjoyment of both hyperbole and martyrdom. ;)

This is true, Blair likes to "take one for the team" a bit to much sometimes... you gotta wonder what that leads to behind closed doors... :confused:

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:52 AM

the UK signed in the all out fire arm ban .
Correction. It was '96 and '97, and it just banned handguns (self loading rifles were already banned in the '80s).

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:52 AM

Here's two more:

FACT: Among 26 industrialized nations, 86% of gun deaths among children under age 15 occurred in the United States.

- Provided by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence

Once again, more biased statistics. Higher population therefore higher percentile. Not to mention neglagent parents. Had those parents taken proper percautions like trigger locks and gun safes, then those kids never would have gotten themselves killed.

FACT: Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries.

- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)

Most of our gun deaths occur in inner city gang wars, why do you expect that the government and tax payers have to fit the bill? Most gang bangers come from projects and low income family situations, its not because of the guns its because of the lack of proper education, income, and life choices.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 11:53 AM

Correction. It was '96 and '97, and it just banned handguns (self loading rifles were already banned in the '80s).

Oh, I could have sworn that the article someone else posted earlier said it was '98. Guess I was wrong.

Edit: The article did say handguns were banned in '98, I just checked (I printed it out cause I wanted a copy).

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:56 AM

In the UK we are making some progress in getting the ban on self loading rifles restricted. It may be a compromise deal though, as the Government is considering making the gun registry a matter of public record.

We don't even have a public record for peadophiles, but we may have one for us evil gun owners. Better check the register when you move house folks, you may end up living next to me!

I could live with that though so long as we get M14s, FALs and G3s back.

gary bolt

03-21-2006, 11:57 AM

Not that surprising really. The U.S. has a higher population than any of those countries. Therefore more crazies, more grudges and more weapons. Statistically I be we wouldn't be that bad. Thats also not taking into account that it wasn't until late 98 that the UK signed in the all out fire arm ban, since then the violent crime rate has risen. Whether or not is was all by handguns is irrelevent because people were less scared of being shot when mugging or burglarizing someone.

The US has a bit more than 3 times the population of Germany but almost 32 times the gun homicides. You folks must just have bigger grudges and crazier crazies.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 11:58 AM

Oh, I could have sworn that the article someone else posted earlier said it was '98. Guess I was wrong.

Edit: The article did say handguns were banned in '98, I just checked (I printed it out cause I wanted a copy).

Nope. Dumblane happened in '96. The Tories ("Conservatives") passed the 1996 Firearms Act banning all handguns except .22s, then Labour came to power in '97 and banned .22s with the Firearms Act 1997.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 12:00 PM

The US has a bit more than 3 times the population of Germany but almost 32 times the gun homicides. You folks must just have bigger grudges and crazier crazies.

Pretty much dude, thats why Blair and I both cited societal differences.

Its not really that confusing, the more you throw people into one place that have conflicting views and life styles, the more problems that come of it. Sure America is the worlds melting pot, but its also the worlds battlefield of sorts. There are too many closed minded, disrespectful people in the same place, therefore violence is more prominent.

JeffreyWKramer

03-21-2006, 12:00 PM

The US has a bit more than 3 times the population of Germany but almost 32 times the gun homicides. You folks must just have bigger grudges and crazier crazies.

I think there are some cultural issues which contribute to the murder rate in the US. It isn't like the US has really had a more violent history than other nations, so I'm not sure what it is, but I'm by no means certain that a firearm ban would improve things greatly. Sure, firearm bans would prevent things like drive-by gang murders, but those make up a very small percentage of the murders in the US.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:00 PM

The US has a bit more than 3 times the population of Germany but almost 32 times the gun homicides. You folks must just have bigger grudges and crazier crazies.
Or just more areas of tension, a different culture, a different attitude to policing, and so forth.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 12:01 PM

Nope. Dumblane happened in '96. The Tories ("Conservatives") passed the 1996 Firearms Act banning all handguns except .22s, then Labour came to power in '97 and banned .22s with the Firearms Act 1997.

Interesting, I wonder why that article said it was '98 then. Thanks for the history lesson Blair! :D

JeffreyWKramer

03-21-2006, 12:01 PM

Or just more areas of tension, a different culture, a different attitude to policing, and so forth.

I think one difference is that the US has had more history than most nations of citizens handling things for themselves. The "rugged individualist" thing, all that. Sometimes these trends take a wrong turn.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:02 PM

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:02 PM

Pretty much dude, thats why Blair and I both cited societal differences.

Its not really that confusing, the more you throw people into one place that have conflicting views and life styles, the more problems that come of it. Sure America is the worlds melting pot, but its also the worlds battlefield of sorts. There are too many closed minded, disrespectful people in the same place, therefore violence is more prominent.

Indeed.
I see the US as the worlds Omlett. Unfortunately it's a place where eggs are broken.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:03 PM

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:05 PM

Interesting, I wonder why that article said it was '98 then. Thanks for the history lesson Blair! :D
Maybe just a typo? Or maybe it got the ban and the subsequent "amnesty" mixed up?

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:07 PM

From Blairh's site: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

Does Gun Ownership Deter Burglaries?

Summary
Although there is no evidence to indicate gun ownership deters overall burglary rates, gun ownership may be a factor in deterring burglars from entering occupied dwellings ("hot" burglaries).

How compelling!

The Dosadi Experiment

03-21-2006, 12:07 PM

This is a what-if situation.

Someone shoots the one in charge of the country, he's captured by various agents, and taken in for questioning, never to see the light of day again.

The man did however leave a note, he arranged for this note to end up in the hands of various media outlets, and in the note he states that he only fullfilled hs duty as an American.

The government had become opressive, and he simply rid the country of a tyrant who had abused the system and taken away the liberties of the American people. It was his right, by order of the constitution to take this step, and it was his moral duty as an American to do this.

So Crazy-Bob...

can get away with his murder because his action is supported by the Constitution?

The Dosadi Experiment

03-21-2006, 12:10 PM

All of your stuff has been rhetoric and flawed studies.
www.guncite.com collects quite a lot of articles and academic studies in one place. Much of what you posted is either myth ("making stuff up") or highly flawed (taking surveys from a limited sample of cities)

I really recommend reading all of the articles on guncite. Quite insightful.

and it's such an unbiased site too.

I'm convinced!

:rolleyes:

no wait, sorry... I'm not...

TinMan

03-21-2006, 12:12 PM

Hey, BlairH and Tin Man, are you guys going to post any statistics or studies to back up all of the stuff you are saying, or are you just going to keep making shit up? I have seen one post from BlairH that directly deals with one of the facts that I have posted. Everything else has been what you "think."

Look dude, all it takes is a bit of understanding and common sense when reading your statistics that they're leaving big variables out just so they can be used as persuasive arguements. Don't tell me I'm "making shit up" when I'm outright calling out the bullshit in YOUR statistics that you seem to hold as true.

Also, I'm sitting at work (which is where I post 99% of the time) so purusing the internet for facts and statistics is hard to do while working. I can pop in real quick with a post, but searching for all kinds of info I don't have the time for. I'm debating this using previously aquired knowledge, not just scouring the internet for biased statistics.

As to tin man's assertion that the size of the populations in some way indicates that the homicide statistic is faulty, all you need to do is realize that japan has 127 million people and the US has 300 million, so relative to our poplation, Japan would have 45 homicides by guns a year.

I would also assume there are less guns per capita and you're also ignoring cultural differences just like I've been stating in my last couple posts. Every human being and every culture on the face of this planet IS NOT THE SAME. You cannot assume that people will react to different situations exactly the same. What good for the goose is NOT always good for the gander.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:12 PM

and it's such an unbiased site too.

I'm convinced!

:rolleyes:

no wait, sorry... I'm not...

Yes, the site is biased but the research cited is not. Follow up the hyperlinks and footnotes.

The site didn't do the research, it merely acts as a depot for that sort of thing.

JeffreyWKramer

03-21-2006, 12:12 PM

So Crazy-Bob...

can get away with his murder because his action is supported by the Constitution?

If he can make a good enough case - and, more importantly, if the government is acting egregiously enough - to get the public behind him, yes. So far that hasn't happened in the US. Nothing to say it couldn't, though, and current trends in US government suggest that it certainly could happen.

TinMan

03-21-2006, 12:13 PM

Indeed.
I see the US as the worlds Omlett. Unfortunately it's a place where eggs are broken.

Exactly.

America contains so many religions, races, political views and cultures that sooner or later people will butt heads, and they do.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:14 PM

From Blairh's site: http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdgbur.html

How compelling!
About as compelling as your stuff (and a hell of a lot more substansial I might add)

The Dosadi Experiment

03-21-2006, 12:16 PM

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:16 PM

I would also assume there are less guns per capita and you're also ignoring cultural differences just like I've been stating in my last couple posts. Every human being and every culture on the face of this planet IS NOT THE SAME. You cannot assume that people will react to different situations exactly the same. What good for the goose is NOT always good for the gander.No crap there are less guns per capita in Japan. That is the point. They don't have many guns, thus they aren't running around shooting each other.

So, what cultural differences exist here that don't exist in Japan? Racial tension? - they have that.

JeffreyWKramer

03-21-2006, 12:17 PM

if you're citing culture as an ever important factor, don't you undermine your own argument?

If the USA has a culture more prone to violence, then how wise is it, to supply them with guns? Wouldn't stricter control be more helpfull, as you would make it easier to temper the violence?

Would you give a loaded gun to mentally unstable character who is in general more prone to acts of violence than someone else is?

Cultural differences aren't an argument for gun ownership. They're a possible explanation for why the US homicide rates are so high compared to most nations.

The reason for gun ownership is the Second Amendment, and the principles which underlie it, as I stated earlier.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:18 PM

Exactly.

America contains so many religions, races, political views and cultures that sooner or later people will butt heads, and they do.Again, do you guys have any evidence that this is a factor in the majority of gun deaths in the US? Or is it just more guessing?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:18 PM

No crap there are less guns per capita in Japan. That is the point. They don't have many guns, thus they aren't running around shooting each other.

So, what cultural differences exist here that don't exist in Japan? Racial tension? - they have that.
The Japanese people have a long history of a very unique relationship with their Government that Western nations find peculuar or even alien.

Violently Apathetic

03-21-2006, 12:19 PM

America contains so many religions, races, political views and cultures that sooner or later people will butt heads, and they do.

Well, Toronto, if I remember correctly, is the world's most diverse city and while there IS a high crime rate compared to the rest of the Nation the amount of gun related deaths doesn't really compare to those in American cities of near equal size...

I wonder if there's any truth to the idea that America is simply a gun happy culture, and if so I wonder why that is....

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:21 PM

The Japanese people have a long history of a very unique relationship with their Government that Western nations find peculuar or even alien.You mean western countries like the UK which also have exponentially fewer gun homicides than the US? Because that really doesn't explain it, does it?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:26 PM

You mean western countries like the UK which also have exponentially fewer gun homicides than the US? Because that really doesn't explain it, does it?
No, but the other factors I have cited time and time again might.

Have you digested every article on guncite yet?

TinMan

03-21-2006, 12:30 PM

No crap there are less guns per capita in Japan. That is the point. They don't have many guns, thus they aren't running around shooting each other.

So, what cultural differences exist here that don't exist in Japan? Racial tension? - they have that.

I'm about done arguing with you. I'm sorry but you're not paying any attention to culture at all.

In Japan the culture is largely based upon buddhist principles and the ideals of honor and respect. The fact of the matter is that their culture has existed on that one island for a long time, longer than the U.S. has been around. Theres more history to the culture, theres more belief in their culture. Their ideals are what seperate America and Japan, we do not have an overarching culture here in the U.S. that revolves around honor and respect. There are big differences, not all good though, example; it is not generally considered inappropriate for men to grope women in Japan, whether public or not and whether the even know the women or not (at least this is how it still was up until a few years ago, I don't know if its changed since then), now in the U.S. that would considered extremely inappropriate. The cultural differences are HUGE, by ignoring that you're just an uninformed arguementative child.

The Dosadi Experiment

03-21-2006, 12:32 PM

The Japanese people have a long history of a very unique relationship with their Government that Western nations find peculuar or even alien.

Yes... a long rich history, dating back to the end of World Warr II...

World War II, that's absolutely ancient history.

:rolleyes:

TinMan

03-21-2006, 12:33 PM

Again, do you guys have any evidence that this is a factor in the majority of gun deaths in the US? Or is it just more guessing?

Once again. ITS COMMON SENSE, if you can't understand that children are taught based upon the culture from which they are born into, then theres no sense in arguing. Culture plays a huge role in how one is raised and how they look at the world and other individuals. Everyone is not the same and all cultures do NOT hold the same values, ascribing your views and values to other cultures is an incorrect assumption.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:35 PM

No, but the other factors I have cited time and time again might.

Have you digested every article on guncite yet?Yup, and what is funny about the site is that they use a lot of words like "might" or "may" or "could" as if they aren't really sure of what they are saying.

In any event, you or I are going to be able to twist/interpret any statistic to our argument so it isn't that helpful to the discussion. About the only statistic that is indisputable is that exponentially more citizens die in the US because of guns than any other place on the planet.

I think that is because we have crappy gun laws, you think it's because of other factors, but neither opinion brings any of those people back to life.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:36 PM

Yes... a long rich history, dating back to the end of World Warr II...

World War II, that's absolutely ancient history.

:rolleyes:

Umm...no.

Japanese society existed long before WWII.

The one society in history that "successfully" gave up firearms was Japan in the 17th century, as detailed in Noel Perrin's superb book Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword 1543-1879. An isolated island with a totalitarian dictatorship, Japan was able to get rid of the guns. Historian Stephen Turnbull summarizes the result:

[The dictator] Hidéyoshi's resources were such that the edict was carried out to the letter. The growing social mobility of peasants was thus flung suddenly into reverse. The ikki, the warrior-monks, became figures of the past . . . Hidéyoshi had deprived the peasants of their weapons. Iéyasu [the next ruler] now began to deprive them of their self respect. If a peasant offended a samurai he might be cut down on the spot by the samurai's sword. [The Samurai: A Military History (New York: Macmillan, 1977).]

The inferior status of the peasantry having been affirmed by civil disarmament, the Samurai enjoyed kiri-sute gomen, permission to kill and depart. Any disrespectful member of the lower class could be executed by a Samurai's sword.

The Japanese disarmament laws helped mold the culture of submission to authority which facilitated Japan's domination by an imperialist military dictatorship in the 1930s, which led the nation into a disastrous world war.

-Source: David Kopel

TinMan

03-21-2006, 12:36 PM

Well, Toronto, if I remember correctly, is the world's most diverse city and while there IS a high crime rate compared to the rest of the Nation the amount of gun related deaths doesn't really compare to those in American cities of near equal size...

I wonder if there's any truth to the idea that America is simply a gun happy culture, and if so I wonder why that is....

I don't honestly doubt it. If people haven't noticed some of the most popular movies are action movies where the "hero" stands up for what he believes is right. The difference is that not everyone believes the same things are right and that breeds conflict. A lot of it is a big masculine "I won't let you get the upperhand on me" pissing contest and guns have become a big way of showing your "dick" off.

Its inexcusable that some people act this way, but it doesn't justify removing the right to own a fire arm from people who observe laws and respect others.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:39 PM

Once again. ITS COMMON SENSE, if you can't understand that children are taught based upon the culture from which they are born into, then theres no sense in arguing. Culture plays a huge role in how one is raised and how they look at the world and other individuals. Everyone is not the same and all cultures do NOT hold the same values, ascribing your views and values to other cultures is an incorrect assumption.TinMan, I am not trying to argue with you, I am just looking for some evidence that the majority of gun homicides in the US are a result of cultural differences. I can't find any, can you?

You may think it is common sense, but if there are no statistics backing it up in any way all it is is a theory.

Show me why your theory is true. Not why you think it is true.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:39 PM

In any event, you or I are going to be able to twist/interpret any statistic to our argument so it isn't that helpful to the discussion. About the only statistic that is indisputable is that exponentially more citizens die in the US because of guns than any other place on the planet.

Explain to me why countries with a similar or higher gun to person ratio, like Canada and Switzerland have lower gun crime rates than the US? Could it be *gasp* the same cultural differences that lower the crime rate in places like Germany and Sweeden?

(yes, there are lots of guns in Canada)

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:40 PM

TinMan, I am not trying to argue with you, I am just looking for some evidence that the majority of gun homicides in the US are a result of cultural differences. I can't find any, can you?

Because it's a sociological argument, not a statistical one.

Sociological arguments tend to hold more academic sway than statistical ones due to the various flaws present in statistical information gathering. Ever heard the saying "lies, damn lies and statistics"?

Heck, even if you want some pro-gun statistics, check out guncite. Only reason I haven't cited them is that I don't put much faith in statistics, and I personally wouldn't argue using something I had little faith in.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:44 PM

Explain to me why countries with a similar or higher gun to person ratio, like Canada and Switzerland have lower gun crime rates than the US? Could it be *gasp* the same cultural differences that lower the crime rate in places like Germany and Sweeden?

(yes, there are lots of guns in Canada)Yes, it could be. But it isn't until you or someone else prove it.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:46 PM

Yes, it could be. But it isn't until you or someone else prove it.

That doesn't make sense. Some things are impossible to prove because they are based on intangables such as culture. We know that culture exists, we know it has influences, but it's intangable. We can't prove it from a statistical point of view (other than comparing countries like Switzerland to the US), because it's a sociological argument. Unless you want me to start allocating "culture points" to different countries...

Again, Switzerland has the highest rate of private gun ownership in the world, yet it's murder rate is far lower than that of the US. Why is this? Surely it can't be the guns? ;)

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:49 PM

That doesn't make sense. Some things are impossible to prove because theya are based on intangables such as culture. We know that culture exists, we know it has influences, but it's intangable. We can't prove it from a statistical point of view (other than comparing countries like Switzerland to the US), because it's a sociological argument.Fair enough. Then you should equally understand that it would not be an adequete argument in any legitimate proceeding without some sort of proof.

I am willing to accept for the time being that some sort of cultural difference vastly contributes to gun violence in the US. If that is believed to be the reason, why are we still allowing people to walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a revolver?

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:52 PM

Fair enough. Then you should equally understand that it would not be an adequete argument in any legitimate proceeding without some sort of proof.
Well, the 1996 Firearms Act banning handguns was passed in a "legitimate proceeding" and there certianly wasn't any proof that it would curb crime (on the contrary: The number of shootings in this Countr has increased since the ban)

why are we still allowing people to walk into a Wal-Mart and buy a revolver?
Why not? They still carry out the same background checks that every other gun dealer and ffl in the country is obligated to carry out. Do you have "proof" that banning wal mart revolvers would curb crime? The burden on proof is certianly on you, as you want to change the status quo.

The Dosadi Experiment

03-21-2006, 12:54 PM

Umm...no.

Japanese society existed long before WWII.

But it's current government did not.

If you're going to ignore the impact of the second world war on Japanese culture and thinking, then you are a retard. As for your little quote... it's so biased it makes baby jesus bleed blood from his anus.

The Dosadi Experiment

03-21-2006, 12:56 PM

more legal guns = more illegal guns.

As it becomes shit-easy to steal guns.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 12:56 PM

But it's current government did not.

If you're going to ignore the impact of the second world war on Japanese culture and thinking, then you are a retard. As for your little quote... it's so biased it makes baby jesus bleed blood from his anus.

Oh bollocks! I've been called a retard on an internet discussion forum! I must admit myself to a mental institute. Sod-off.

If you ignore Japanese history prior to WWII then you too must be a (I can't lower myself. I will not use the "R" word.) silly person, and selective in their use of history.

Huh?

03-21-2006, 12:56 PM

Well, the 1996 Firearms Act banning handguns was passed in a "legitimate proceeding" and there certianly wasn't any proof that it would curb crime (on the contrary: The number of shootings in this Countr has increased since the ban)Again, your opinion vs. their opinion. The only thing that would stop gun death is banning the manufacture and sale of guns and/or ammunition. Which I think is a great idea.

Why not? They still carry out the same background checks that every other gun dealer and ffl in the country is obligated to carry out?What do they need a handgun for? It isn't hunting animals, it is killing humans.

And before you get into the sport shooting thing, realize that there are a lot more handguns in the US than there are sport shooters.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 01:00 PM

Again, your opinion vs. their opinion. The only thing that would stop gun death is banning the manufacture and sale of guns and/or ammunition. Which I think is a great idea.
No, it's a crap idea.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel120501.shtml
Just because the manufacture of guns is "banned" does not mean that criminals will stop manufacturing them. They are EASY to build. The STEN gun was manufactured in garages in Scotland during WWII. It was possibly one of the best submachine guns in WWII.

The only way to stop gun crime is to brainwash everybody.

What do they need a handgun for? It isn't hunting animals, it is killing humans.
Self defense and competition shooting. Many handguns are designed with features that make them good competition guns (look at the USP Expert from Heckler & Koch for example)

TinMan

03-21-2006, 01:02 PM

Because it's a sociological argument, not a statistical one.

Sociological arguments tend to hold more academic sway than statistical ones due to the various flaws present in statistical information gathering. Ever heard the saying "lies, damn lies and statistics"?

Heck, even if you want some pro-gun statistics, check out guncite. Only reason I haven't cited them is that I don't put much faith in statistics, and I personally wouldn't argue using something I had little faith in.

Exactly.

You cannot map the human psyche or predict how every human on the planet will react to certain situations based upon the culture of their upbringing. That makes it impossible to turn those facts into statistics.

thehod

03-21-2006, 03:14 PM

I'm going to shock you by actually saying yes. 30,000 lives is an acceptable price for any right, whether it be the right to bear arms, the right to free speech, or the right to be free from unreasonable search and seziure.

If someone told me the only way to keep any of those rights would be to engage in a conflict that would be guaranteed to kill 30,000 people, I would have no qualms of engaging in such a conflict rather than have such rights taken away.

Fair enough.

We'll start with your family and friends shall we?

thehod

03-21-2006, 03:20 PM

I stated this earlier Jeff, there wasn't much rebut then either! lol

I do believe that whole heartedly though, the sooner we let go of our right to bear arms, the sooner we'll see tyrannical rule established.

I sort of did on page 2

There are what, 100 million, 200 million, 300 million people in your country. How many are going to disagree on whether your government is corrupt or not? I bet you half of them would love what the government was doing, whilst half of them wouldn't. That's not rising against a corrupt government, that's civil war.

fly on the wall

03-21-2006, 03:39 PM

Well....

He didn't really kill him because he was on the lawn, he killed him after a long history of strife with the kid and his family. Not that I'm trying defend him, just that he didn't just kill the kid for being on the lawn.

Meanwhile there have been a rash of truly casual killings around DC where I live.

One guy killed a stranger for saying, "Oh y'all a clown". After that insult he got his gun and shot the man in the head several times. Witnesses said the shooter said, "Now who's the clown." with a smile on his face.

Those darn guns!!! We got to do something about them.

Also this other guy killed a stranger for driving too slow. He decided the guy in front of him was driving to slow so he rammed the guy in front of him. The man in front got out and the other man attacked him, quickly beating him to death, almost twisting the dead man's foot off. A cop showed up and the murderer lunged at him so the cop shot him dead.

Put that rogue cop in jail!!!

Apparently there is a real epidemic of casual nutty murders in the DC area. You look crossed-eyed at kids and you're dead.

Spackling Compound

03-21-2006, 03:57 PM

Well....

He didn't really kill him because he was on the lawn, he killed him after a long history of strife with the kid and his family. Not that I'm trying defend him, just that he didn't just kill the kid for being on the lawn.

Meanwhile there have been a rash of truly casual killings around DC where I live.

I think that we've come to think of each other in terms of materials and time.
If you're moving at 10 mph in the left lane during the morning rush, I will forget you are a human being and see you only as a metallic object in front of me keeping me from my goal and perhaps even costing me a reprimand in my workplace. What would rid me of the metallic object? Big guns? A big ol' truck that could easily drive over you, smashing you and leaving you behind? Yeahhhhh..nice.
Sad, really.
I notice this about myself. If there are neighbors who constantly mess up my yard or park in my drive or leave their garbage on my "side", sometimes I imagine how good it would be if they just weren't here no mo'.
Again, sad.
Inhuman.

macul

03-21-2006, 03:58 PM

Fair enough.

We'll start with your family and friends shall we?

Only if we start with your family and friends as the first ones to be targetted by an armed individual intent on doing them grave bodily harm if not outright murdering them. And of course your friends and family would have to confront said individual void of the ability to properly defend themselves.

thehod

03-21-2006, 04:09 PM

Only if we start with your family and friends as the first ones to be targetted by an armed individual intent on doing them grave bodily harm if not outright murdering them. And of course your friends and family would have to confront said individual void of the ability to properly defend themselves.

As I've already stated:

I know I'm really playing devils advocate on this, but I can't see the benefit of guns for the public. I've never needed one. I don't know anyone who has ever needed one, and I don't know anyone who would at any point have benefited by having one. That may just be the country I live in though.

I just don't see that there are hordes are heavily armed maniacs roaming the streets looking for anyone not carrying a hand cannon so that they can use them for target practice and anything else that crosses their sorded little minds.

I've lived on this earth for 33 years without seeing any of this. My father has been here 64 and he's not seen anything like that either. My grandfather was 93 when he died, and he saw plenty of it, but then again there was a war going on at the time.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen, its just that I, everyone I know, and most of the people they know don't feel threatend to the level that they feel they need to carry a gun to protect themselves.

It's one of the perks of living in a country where you can't buy a Magnum with your milk.

macul

03-21-2006, 04:11 PM

Drop the hyperbole and we'll talk, hod.

Naldo

03-21-2006, 04:15 PM

BlairH, quite wasting your time with Huh.

You aren't going to change his mind.

He wants to remove your 2nd amendment right. But call him stupid in public for saying so and he'll cry about his 1st amendment rights.

No amount of statistics will change his mind.

Some statistics can be rather easily manipulated, even to the point of good humor. For instance:

(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.

(Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept. of Health Human Services)

Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000.
Yes, that is 80 million.

(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 762.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is 0.000099.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 17,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, "Guns don't kill people, doctors do."

He's entitled to his opinion.

thehod

03-21-2006, 04:18 PM

Drop the hyperbole and we'll talk, hod.

I'm not exagerating here. I being serious.

I do not feel threatend by society to the extent that I feel I have to carry a weapon. Neither does anyone I know, and from the comments they have made to me on this matter, neither does anyone they know either.

I feel my house is secure enough without having weapons in the house. I feel that the city I live in is good enough so that I don't need a weapon with me when I go out, mostly because chances are that the people I meet won't have a weapon on them.

Its not a hard and fast rule, but as a general state of affairs, I live in a safe city.

Why don't you try dropping the scaremongeing over the need to carry a gun.

Naldo

03-21-2006, 04:23 PM

macul

03-21-2006, 04:25 PM

I'm not exagerating here. I being serious.

I do not feel threatend by society to the extent that I feel I have to carry a weapon. Neither does anyone I know, and from the comments they have made to me on this matter, neither does anyone they know either.

I feel my house is secure enough without having weapons in the house. I feel that the city I live in is good enough so that I don't need a weapon with me when I go out, mostly because chances are that the people I meet won't have a weapon on them.

Its not a hard and fast rule, but as a general state of affairs, I live in a safe city.

Why don't you try dropping the scaremongeing over the need to carry a gun.

Who's scaremongering? Exactly what I have said that you can possibly construe as me trying to scare you in to thinking you need to carry a firearm?

Carry a firearm, or not. Doesn't matter to me either way. Like guns, or not. Again, doesn't matter to me either way. However, don't pretend that just because you don't know anyone who hasn't benefited from gun ownership doesn't mean we don't exist. You live in a different country, hod. Different culture. Different people. The city I live in has a pretty bad crimerate. We've had over 30 murders this year alone. Taking away my gun will not lower the crime rate and I refuse to surrender the best means I have of protecting myself and family.

thehod

03-21-2006, 04:35 PM

Who's scaremongering? Exactly what I have said that you can possibly construe as me trying to scare you in to thinking you need to carry a firearm?

Carry a firearm, or not. Doesn't matter to me either way. Like guns, or not. Again, doesn't matter to me either way. However, don't pretend that just because you don't know anyone who hasn't benefited from gun ownership doesn't mean we don't exist. You live in a different country, hod. Different culture. Different people. The city I live in has a pretty bad crimerate. We've had over 30 murders this year alone. Taking away my gun will not lower the crime rate and I refuse to surrender the best means I have of protecting myself and family.

Ok, so my last comment was a slightly unwarrented dig, and I perfectly understand why you feel the way you do.

You're right, we come from different parts of the world, and those parts and our experiances have shaped how we feel on this matter.

What we can't get away from is the fact that 30,000 die each year in the US in some way related to guns.

Regardless of whether doctors, or cars, or tobacco or twinkies cause more deaths, thats still 30,000 people dead. I am of the opinion that something should be done to attempt to reduce that number. Whether that means some form of gun control or not, I don't know.

Is 30,000 dead people a reasonable price for being allowed to shoot at targets or tin cans on a weekend, or is it that being allowed to shoot at targets or tin cans on a weekend keeps that number down to 30,000?

Either way, I find it rather callous when someone suggests that 30,000 dead people is acceptable, and was trying to bring it home to people that these are real people with real lives, and that 1 death, accidental or otherwise, with a gun, is 1 too many.

Ray R.

03-21-2006, 04:41 PM

I don't need to carry a gun. I wish to own them.

I don't keep a loaded gun in the house, but I can have a loaded gun in my hand very quickly.

I'm a target shooter, non-competitive. But yes, target shooting is a sport, contrary to the opinion of others. It's recognized as such by many non-political organizations in this country and also recognized as such by the IOC.

So, yeah I own guns, clean them, take them apart, put them back together and shoot them. The sport of target shooting is among one of my several hobbies.

Don't like it? Fine, don't do it. It's just that easy.

Yup. Don't like guns. Won't own a gun. Have shot skeet a little and played Doom. But I personally won't ever own one, and I've been a victim of a violent crime and lost an uncle to murder, and live in a metro area that leads the nation in the murder rate every other year or so. We have to compete with Baltimore, so it's tough....

But I'm also really into the United States Constitution. The Second Amendment allows others to bear arms, and as a believer in constitutional law I respect that. Contrary to some popular belief, there has been ZERO challenges to the Second Amendment in the entire history of the Supreme Court. There may be judicial review of certain aspects of gun ownership, such as teflon-coated ammo, automatic weapon ownership, and other aspects involved with OWNING a PARTICULAR weapon or ammo, but the right to bear arms has never suffered any serious scrutiny.

The best you can hope for is proper gun education, proper gun use, and for god's sake, common sense, like keeping it away from children or not resorting to using one in a domestic situation with family members. Other than that, if you want to collect legally purchased Glocks as a hobby, buy 100.

I'm not totally sold on personal weapon ownership as being the last bastion against government tyranny, but if there is a military coup or other suppression of civil rights leading to a need for a revolution, I know which of my neighbors are packing and can sell me one. Other than that, I'll take my chances going gunless for the rest of my life.

This is not a liberal/conservative issue. It's a constitutional one.

Hiromi

03-21-2006, 04:45 PM

Ok, so my last comment was a slightly unwarrented dig, and I perfectly understand why you feel the way you do.

You're right, we come from different parts of the world, and those parts and our experiances have shaped how we feel on this matter.

What we can't get away from is the fact that 30,000 die each year in the US in some way related to guns.

Regardless of whether doctors, or cars, or tobacco or twinkies cause more deaths, thats still 30,000 people dead. I am of the opinion that something should be done to attempt to reduce that number. Whether that means some form of gun control or not, I don't know.

Is 30,000 dead people a reasonable price for being allowed to shoot at targets or tin cans on a weekend, or is it that being allowed to shoot at targets or tin cans on a weekend keeps that number down to 30,000?

Either way, I find it rather callous when someone suggests that 30,000 dead people is acceptable, and was trying to bring it home to people that these are real people with real lives, and that 1 death, accidental or otherwise, with a gun, is 1 too many.

And this is opposed to the 2.5 million times they're used in defense in the US a year as posted earlier in the thread.

thehod

03-21-2006, 04:50 PM

And this is opposed to the 2.5 million times they're used in defense in the US a year as posted earlier in the thread.

Which I read.

I take it that you consider 30,000 dead people as acceptable losses then?

Hiromi

03-21-2006, 04:57 PM

Endel

03-21-2006, 04:57 PM

Umm...no.

Japanese society existed long before WWII.

The one society in history that "successfully" gave up firearms was Japan in the 17th century, as detailed in Noel Perrin's superb book Giving Up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword 1543-1879. An isolated island with a totalitarian dictatorship, Japan was able to get rid of the guns. Historian Stephen Turnbull summarizes the result:

[The dictator] Hidéyoshi's resources were such that the edict was carried out to the letter. The growing social mobility of peasants was thus flung suddenly into reverse. The ikki, the warrior-monks, became figures of the past . . . Hidéyoshi had deprived the peasants of their weapons. Iéyasu [the next ruler] now began to deprive them of their self respect. If a peasant offended a samurai he might be cut down on the spot by the samurai's sword. [The Samurai: A Military History (New York: Macmillan, 1977).]

The inferior status of the peasantry having been affirmed by civil disarmament, the Samurai enjoyed kiri-sute gomen, permission to kill and depart. Any disrespectful member of the lower class could be executed by a Samurai's sword.

The Japanese disarmament laws helped mold the culture of submission to authority which facilitated Japan's domination by an imperialist military dictatorship in the 1930s, which led the nation into a disastrous world war.

-Source: David Kopel

i think what he ment was that the government now in palce was created by the US for japan right after wwII. it is not the same kind of government as what existed before wwII, or even before the meiji restoration (which is when the disarming and de-classing of the samurai took place). lumping the three as the same government is erroneous and misleading

Ray R.

03-21-2006, 04:58 PM

Which I read.

I take it that you consider 30,000 dead people as acceptable losses then?

hod, I sympathize with your argument. But we get 43,000 dead a year in car crashes here in the United States. My guess is probably the vast majority of them were caused by driver error, unsafe speed, etc.

It's not about acceptable losses, because there are no acceptable losses. Fortunately or unfortunately, it's about the law. I'm not crazy about conceal-and-carry and other risk factors that might lead to higher numbers of deaths due to guns, but the argument against guns is a dead-end (pardon the pun). Because constitutionally, the law is clear and present and explicitly provides the right to private gun ownership.

Better to focus on making sure that the idiots who treat guns like toys get real gunowners and hunters and other professionals like police officers to sit them down in the corner and beat some sense into them. If they do kill somebody, then make sure they do serious jail time. (Hmm....tracking back to the parole discussion from yesterday....).

thehod

03-21-2006, 05:12 PM

How about you quit trying to put words into your opponents mouths? No I don't consider 30,000 deaths to ever be "ok." I also don't consider banning firearms from everyone over the actions of a few to be acceptable either, for one thing it doesn't work. Yes the US has a very large number of gun related deaths compared to other nations, however if you actually break it down rather than trying to generalize a Nation that has states larger than most of the other nations you're trying to compare it to you find that most of it tends to be confined to areas that already have more stringent gun control laws, and the opposite is true in areas with laxer gun control laws. The statistics have been posted in this thread as well in all the other threads this gets brought up in. And these all lead to the conclusion that something OTHER than firearms is the root of this problem, why don't we figure out what that is and try to fix it instead of concentrating on one of the symptoms?

That's what I'm suggesting.

I dont know whether gun control in the states will or will not reduce the number of these deaths, all I know is that there is gun control in my country, and, possibly as a consequence, I don't feel the need to carry a weapon.

I think the US government should be willing to look at ANY solution in order to reduce the number of deaths. If that means giving everyone a gun, then so be it. If that means taking away the second amendment of the constitution, so be it. I happen to be in agreement with Ray on this matter, education and tougher jail sentances is probably the best way to go.

Whatever it takes to stem the flow of deaths. It is a complex issue, and I will admit to not being in full possession of the facts and figures on this. Its something that interests me greatly, and I have to admit that I have changed my opinion on this subject based soley on discussions on this board.

Anyway, its gone midnight here, and I'm still in a bad mood from seeing my inept shower of shit football team get thrashed 7-0 tonight, so I'm going to call it a night here.

I'm enjoying this debate guys. I'll pick it up again tomorrow.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 05:28 PM

To conclude the gun control debate:

Fair enough, y'all don't like guns or gun owners. Fair enough, I respect your right to an opinion. Just don't tell me what I can and can't do. If I want to spend my time target shooting, that's how I'll spend my time. I don't care if you want to cry and whine about my lifestyle or choice of sport, that's your thing. I'm not going to call you an anti-gun bigoted moonbat like some of my fellow gun owners will, because that's your thing... Just don't tell me what I can and can't do.

From what I can tell in the UK, the gun control debate is just another example of the new urban elite telling the rural folks what they can and can't do. Target shooting is very popular here in the countryside, and the more urban people -wishing to end the crime problem in their fair cities- impose bans on our way of life. We saw the same damn thing happen with foxhunting. Now I admit, I'm not a big fan of foxhunting, I find it abhorrent, but that does NOT give me the right to impose my bland-as-fuck law-student gamestation-sales-assistant lifestyle on the foxhunters. Foxhunting was the biggest non-issue in UK politics. In 1996 gun control was the very same non-issue: Mainly urban folks telling the country folks what they could and couldn't do with their time.

Same goes for the Scottish Outdoor Access Code: This wonderful bloody piece of legislation makes it "ok" to trespass on somebody's property if said property is in a rural area, yet if I were to tresspass on a private estate in the city I'd rightly be imprisoned.

I hope for a time where the country dwellers live in equlibrium with their rural counterparts, because the "class struggle" (I'm not even sure if that's even the correct term) going on in Scottish politics right now is bloody pathetic.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 05:29 PM

Anyway, its gone midnight here, and I'm still in a bad mood from seeing my inept shower of shit football team get thrashed 7-0 tonight, so I'm going to call it a night here.

Yeah I saw that one :D

Brian Defferding

03-21-2006, 06:44 PM

west3man

03-21-2006, 06:50 PM

Ha! I completely forGOT the conversation had turned in this direction.

None for me, thanks.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 06:52 PM

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20060321/1001419.asp

There's a picture of the guy's lawn. Not quite as lovely as I expected. Not really anything worth killing a boy for. I'd expect golf course-like grass for someone who gets all huffy over their lawn like that.

I sorta' figured the place would look like a craphole. Guy's gotta' be crazy to shoot a boy for being on his lawn. Crazy people don't earn much. Low earners don't have golf-course lawns.

I'm generalising, but y'all get the gist of what I'm sayin'.

PatrickG

03-21-2006, 06:56 PM

Bottom line for me?

I don't like guns. Never owned one. Never held one.

But I don't think the government should be telling people what they can or can't own.

BlairH

03-21-2006, 07:02 PM

But I don't think the government should be telling people what they can or can't own.
Exactly.

Another one of my hobbies, aside from shooting, is flying RC model aircraft. I don't own any of said aircraft myself as they are bloody expensive, but I do like to indulge my flyboy fantasies every now and then.

However, even this hobby is under threat. The police are trying to get the Government to push through legislation regulating the sale of these aircraft as they can be used as terrorist "drones" carrying explosives to hit civillian aircraft.

Are there any exciting hobbies out there that the Government doesn't want to kill?

The Watcher

03-21-2006, 09:10 PM

Fair enough.

We'll start with your family and friends shall we?Too late, we've already started. They're potentially part of the 30,000 that someone mentioned could possibly die due to guns. And I'm perfectly fine with the fact that they could potentially die as a result of the fact we enjoy the freedoms guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment, just like I'm perfectly fine with the fact they could die due to a murderous rage inspired by someone utilizing their First Amendment rights for hatemongering.

Heck, I'm fine with the fact that I personally could die due to one of the above reasons. The price of freedom is risk.
<