# Ted Nugent on the 2nd Ammendment



## JakeRI (Jul 31, 2009)

Ted Nugent

haha

pretty bold.


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 31, 2009)

Man Nugent knows how to get his point across. Is he really in politics?


----------



## JakeRI (Jul 31, 2009)

not really "in" politics, but always willing to give his view


----------



## Xiphos68 (Jul 31, 2009)

JakeRI said:


> not really "in" politics, but always willing to give his view


oh ok.


----------



## Mattmc74 (Jul 31, 2009)

I agree with everything Ted just said! I wish he would run for office in Michigan! Kudo's Ted


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Jul 31, 2009)

I like DEAD offenders


----------



## s_k_mullins (Jul 31, 2009)

Mattmc74 said:


> I agree with everything Ted just said! I wish he would run for office in Michigan! Kudo's Ted


 
Goddamn right.. People may not like him, but he is very well spoken and damn sure backs up his opinions. I myself don't even carry a gun, but i do support the right to carry guns/own guns, etc. Cuz its a right granted to us by the Constitution and no man nor woman should be able to take it. I fucking hate all the talk of "gun control".. to me, "gun control" is being able to hit your fucking target!

And his idea that people should have the right to carry a gun for self-defense is an idea that i will always agree with. Muggers, thieves, rapists, wife beaters, child molesters, murderers etc. etc. are a stain on our civilization and don't deserve to share the same air as good, honest, hard-working citizens. So if an old lady or young mother or someone else has to shoot one of these pieces of shit in order to defend their self, or their child or property, then so be it. The scumbag fucking had it coming, and should've thought twice before he made his choice

Also, i would have to say that one of Ted's statements should be nominated as statement of the year:


> I don't like _repeat_ offenders, I like DEAD offenders!


Damn right Ted.. People who serve time for violent crimes, and then get out of prison, should never be allowed to live as a normal free man. They lost their rights when they harmed their fellow man. And most of the time, they're just gonna repeat whatever offense they were imprisoned for in the first place. So why give them the chance to do it again?

Also, on a related note, people argue against the death penalty because its "inhumane" and "not right".. fuck that, if a man is arrested because he murdered someone else, then fuck him. He lost his rights, and should be executed the day of the trial. To hell with letting him sit on death row for 20 years, sucking up tax payer's money. When the trial is finished and he has been found guilty, take him down the hall and put him out of his misery. You'll be doing everyone a favor.

/rant

(Sorry  We've been discussing all these topics in a topical debate class that i'm taking... so it's all a little fresh on my mind.)


----------



## JakeRI (Jul 31, 2009)

s_k_mullins said:


> Goddamn right.. People may not like him, but he is very well spoken and damn sure backs up his opinions. I myself don't even carry a gun, but i do support the right to carry guns/own guns, etc. Cuz its a right granted to us by the Constitution and no man nor woman should be able to take it. I fucking hate all the talk of "gun control".. to me, "gun control" is being able to hit your fucking target!
> 
> And his idea that people should have the right to carry a gun for self-defense is an idea that i will always agree with. Muggers, thieves, rapists, wife beaters, child molesters, murderers etc. etc. are a stain on our civilization and don't deserve to share the same air as good, honest, hard-working citizens. So if an old lady or young mother or someone else has to shoot one of these pieces of shit in order to defend their self, or their child or property, then so be it. The scumbag fucking had it coming, and should've thought twice before they made their choice
> 
> ...




yeah. im pro second ammendment, and i do think people deserve a second chance, no matter what. but thats it. a second chance. and its not to say that they still dont deserve to be killed if they do something.


----------



## orb451 (Jul 31, 2009)

Couldn't agree with you more SK, very well said! And I completely agree with Mr. Nugent as well. I'm actually getting my hunting license next weekend and this weekend I'm going to pickup a rifle.

orb........


----------



## signalgrey (Jul 31, 2009)

i cant say i agree with what he;s saying here. He's answering situations. Hes not talking about the problem. Hes talking about his opinion and HIS rights. What he does not take into consideration is that enough gun owners see guns as a physical embodiment of empowerment and they do not understand that these things are weapons designed for killing, not pointing, not waving around, not to talk about, not to threaten. 

Nuge is talking about self defense. In those certain situations, yeah it would have been better. But he is using a kind of black and white reasoning and it doesnt work too well for his overall argument.

My problem with gun control is that too many people have guns who shouldnt have guns. Im sure Nuge is plently careful and respectful with his weapons, but alot of owners arent. Furthermore his comments regarding the judicial system and the prison system are somewhat accurate. But the battle should be fought to make the prison system less of an assraping vacation where people just come and go and the problem isnt solved. Jail isnt a place people seem to fear anymore, punishments dont seem to scare perps. That is what should be changed.

Sure people carrying guns would cut down on crime, but it would also increase accidental death. It would increase wrongful deaths. It would increase the amount of idiots who wave a gun around at the slightest drop of a hat.

Fact of the matter is that lots of Americans do not know or have never learned self restraint when it comes to matters regarding guns. A friend of mine was shot by his own father when he was trying to get back into his own house after locking himself out. Did his dad have the right to defend his house. sure. but he ended up being trigger happy and shooting his son in the shoulder. He has lost alot of mobility in that arm and his father will probably never get over shooting his own son.

Guns arent the answer, banning guns isnt the answer.

careful education and regulation of gun owners is a must. A closer eye must be kept on people owning deadly weapons....period.

owning 75 different rifles isnt self defense, its an arsenal. but that alone is my opnion.


im sorry for any offense. im not looking to argue, this is just my opinion on the topic.

I feel as though America and Americans can only seem to broadcast extremes. Id Est Conservative and Liberal. Neither side seems to even entertain publicly finding a grey area. Of course there are some instances but, America on a public and international scale comes off as a polarized batch of idiot cowboys. At least this is the description i have been told many times by my Korean friends. 

this is why i say im from New York...not the U.S.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jul 31, 2009)

In theory I agree with the death penalty. I agree that some crimes deserve death as a punishment, but you can't really trust the government and prosecution to a fair trial. There is no such thing as "beyond a shadow of a doubt" unless you have them on camera doing it, which can also be faked, but most of the time isn't. But it doesn't even take that much for a death sentence in the US.

As for guns, I believe that people should definitely have the right to them if they want them and meet strict gun control guide lines.


----------



## s_k_mullins (Jul 31, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> As for guns, I believe that people should definitely have the right to them if they want them and meet strict gun control guide lines.


 
The strict guide lines are the key.. cuz while i DO support the right to bear arms, i don't want idiots stockpiling an armory or walking around waving pistols like they're in a goddamn John Wayne western movie.
Question is.. how do you enforce guide lines without impeding on their 2nd amendment rights?


----------



## Tiger (Jul 31, 2009)




----------



## orb451 (Jul 31, 2009)

I'll take a shot at answering your question SK. To me it's simple, you put guns in the hands of owners who have demonstrated their knowledge, understanding and respect for both the law and their right to own a deadly weapon AND want to own a gun in the first place. 

Keep them OUT of the hands of others. So to me at least, that means if you're not mentally incompetent (i.e. psychologically dangerous or with a history of being locked in a psych ward), if you have been arrested or convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors, and so on for bigger obvious *red flags* then you should NOT be allowed to own a gun and your 2nd ammendment rights should be waived for a period of time OR for life depending on the circumstances. If you got caught lifting a pack of gum from a store or you were depressed for a while as a young adult, I don't think you should be disqualified.

If you've held up people with or without a weapon and repeatedly been in/out of jail or juvenile detention then obviously NO, you should not have the right to own a gun.

Sure there is always going to be a grey area, there will ALWAYS be that *ONE* guy who kept quiet, paid his taxes, went to work and suddenly POPS and goes down to Walmart, grabs a 22 rifle off the shelf and decides to shoot up his office or his wife or some shit. Do you think gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals? Honestly? I live in LA, I can assure you there are more gun toting gang bangers in this city than just about anywhere else. People are shot DAILY out here for everything from driving bad, being in the wrong neighborhood, etc. It's not just the movies, that shit happens here regularly. 

But by and large, it's not a warzone, it's not the apocalypse, it's just some areas you steer clear of. Point is though, gun control does NOT keep guns out of the hands of degenerates and human waste. They'll get the guns regardless. And they'll use them regardless. And maybe if society didn't spend as much time and money on these criminals in prison and spent less time paying for their *rights* to cable TV, exercise yards, higher education and creature comforts and spent more money on effectively dealing with crime then we'd all be better off. But instead the prison system has turned into a corporation that makes profits. Makes profit by continually expanding it's population. 

And I disagree that having more than *x* number of weapons automatically makes "an arsenal". Who gets to decide what an arsenal is? Ever heard of a collection? Because guitars aren't used regularly to kill people (except in Slayer's case cuz they're so BROOTALZZZZ) that makes it OK for someone to own 10, 20 or 30 guitars? Should we be weeping at all the wood and natural resources that have been used up by making a guitar? Knives can be used to kill people relatively easily, is there a ban on knives at your local hardware store, grocery store or cooking store? Should we limit the amount of cutlery a person can own? After all, they might arm a whole city block of people with swords n' knives and shit and then all hell would break loose...

And again, there is ALWAYS some whackjob that stockpiles guns n' ammo NOT for a collection, but because he thinks he's an army or in a militia, or going to ramp up for the *race war* or whatever cause du jour is right around the corner. Honestly those nuts don't concern me, when they harm people, they should be stripped of their *collection* and their right to own guns going forward.

Done and Done.

orb..........


----------



## s_k_mullins (Jul 31, 2009)

> To me it's simple, you put guns in the hands of owners who have demonstrated their knowledge, understanding and respect for both the law and their right to own a deadly weapon AND want to own a gun in the first place.
> Keep them OUT of the hands of others. So to me at least, that means if you're not mentally incompetent (i.e. psychologically dangerous or with a history of being locked in a psych ward), if you have been arrested or convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors, and so on for bigger obvious *red flags* then you should NOT be allowed to own a gun and your 2nd ammendment rights should be waived for a period of time OR for life depending on the circumstances. If you got caught lifting a pack of gum from a store or you were depressed for a while as a young adult, I don't think you should be disqualified.


 
 Agreed.. well said!



> And I disagree that having more than *x* number of weapons automatically makes "an arsenal". Who gets to decide what an arsenal is? Ever heard of a collection?





> And again, there is ALWAYS some whackjob that stockpiles guns n' ammo NOT for a collection, but because he thinks he's an army or in a militia, or going to ramp up for the *race war* or whatever


 
I totally have no problem with gun "collections".. cuz i know people personally who own more than 50 guns... when i made the comment about "idiots stockpiling an armory", I was referring directly to the same type of "whackjob" that you mentioned.. a whackjob who think he's preparing for WWIII or something.
Normal, non-"whack" people should be able to own a collection of whatever and however much they want.



> And maybe if society didn't spend as much time and money on these criminals in prison and spent less time paying for their *rights* to cable TV, exercise yards, higher education and creature comforts and spent more money on effectively dealing with crime then we'd all be better off. But instead the prison system has turned into a corporation that makes profits. Makes profit by continually expanding it's population.


 
^^ couldn't agree more. Their pursuit of 'profits' pull too much from the economy


----------



## playstopause (Aug 1, 2009)

General question : in what year was the 2nd amendment written?


----------



## Tiger (Aug 1, 2009)

I think Moses brought it down on a tablet around 1450BC.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Aug 1, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I like DEAD offenders



+1
AMEN!
We don't need repeat offenders being release from a broken justice system


----------



## telecaster90 (Aug 1, 2009)

playstopause said:


> General question : in what year was the 2nd amendment written?



The United States Constitution was adopted in 1787 so at some point before that


----------



## Zoltta (Aug 1, 2009)

orb451 said:


> To me it's simple, you put guns in the hands of owners who have demonstrated their knowledge, understanding and respect for both the law and their right to own a deadly weapon AND want to own a gun in the first place.
> 
> Keep them OUT of the hands of others. So to me at least, that means if you're not mentally incompetent (i.e. psychologically dangerous or with a history of being locked in a psych ward), if you have been arrested or convicted of felonies or certain misdemeanors, and so on for bigger obvious *red flags* then you should NOT be allowed to own a gun and your 2nd ammendment rights should be waived for a period of time OR for life depending on the circumstances. If you got caught lifting a pack of gum from a store or you were depressed for a while as a young adult, I don't think you should be disqualified.



Its already like that, thats why gun control laws DONT DO A FUCKING THING.

And Strict guidelines? What do you guys mean by that? If you mean more dumb pointless gun control laws that dont affect criminal minds then you should think again.

I am a collector, have been my whole life. I have a fairly large collection of firearms and ammo. I also do a little bit of gunsmithing and can legally build my own weapons. I also make my own ammo. Am i a nutjob? No, its a hobby and collection. Just like how most of you collect guitars and shit.

Only thing "strict guidelines" do for people like me is limit my capabilities of doing more with this hobby. Doesnt do shit for street thugs, they can do w/e they please because its not like they go to a shop to buy their shit.

Here in NJ i have tons of restrictions. 15 round magazine limit, no bayonet lug, Flash hider, folding stock, no CCW, and now they just passed a 1 handgun per month bill. We also have a list of banned guns and most of them are no different than the guns we are allowed to own.

Really? Come on, does all that even make sense? None of that affects the gun itself or in no way possible does it stop a man from shooting it out in a backyard BBQ whenever he wants. Are those the STRICT GUIDELINES you are talking about? It only makes it harder for me to legally personalize and buy my desired items.


----------



## playstopause (Aug 1, 2009)

telecaster90 said:


> The United States Constitution was adopted in 1787 so at some point before that



Thanks. 

Next question : does the political / economic / geographic context at that time is the same as it is in 2009?


----------



## telecaster90 (Aug 1, 2009)

playstopause said:


> Thanks.
> 
> Next question : does the political / economic / geographic context at that time is the same as it is in 2009?



I see where you're going with this, but you're treating the Constitution like it's just a flyer someone posted in Philadelphia one day. The United States Constitution, whether or not the politicians follow it, _is_ the highest law of the land in the United States. I'll post a more thought out reply to this later


----------



## skattabrain (Aug 1, 2009)

+1 telecaster ... free speech was in there too ... how obsolete. i mean, c'mon ... it's 2009 ... free speech doesn't fit in with not loving obama, and not loving gov't takeover of business, and not loving the fact that banks are trying to own the world, and not loving waiting in line for bureaucratic healthcare ... so let's remove that obsolete position and especially those noisey guys on am radio.

+1 ted nugent. well spoken. "i don't like repeat offenders, i like dead offenders."


----------



## playstopause (Aug 2, 2009)

telecaster90 said:


> I see where you're going with this, but you're treating the Constitution like it's just a flyer someone posted in Philadelphia one day. The United States Constitution, whether or not the politicians follow it, _is_ the highest law of the land in the United States. I'll post a more thought out reply to this later



I did not treat anything of anything and I doubt you see where i'm going with this.


----------



## hutchman (Aug 2, 2009)

Wow. Get into it Ted..........


----------



## troyguitar (Aug 2, 2009)

hutchman said:


> Wow. Get into it Ted..........



He always does


----------



## renzoip (Aug 2, 2009)

Just a question: When you register a gun, do they become public records the way motor vehicles do? I mean, can a person find out if there are gun owners around his/her area?


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 2, 2009)

s_k_mullins said:


> Question is.. how do you enforce guide lines without impeding on their 2nd amendment rights?


Catch 22.

If we take the 2nd as intended, the last check and balance in the democratic system, then it becomes impossible for the government to enforce any guide lines, for good or for bad.

And I'll finish with a quote from another forum I've been Assing around as of late...



> Freedom is messy. Freedom is unruly, Freedom always has people who make mistakes as well as people who make wise choices. Freedom is an imperfect society, but I'll take freedom instead of tyrants every day of the week.





renzoip said:


> Just a question: When you register a gun, do they become public records the way motor vehicles do? I mean, can a person find out if there are gun owners around his/her area?


I can't say. What I can say is, I don't believe FL has registration. I know OH doesn't.

And I would certainly hope not, as well. Registration drives down legal gun ownership, which would make me one of only a few targets for any internet-enabled thug looking for a source for his arsenal.



playstopause said:


> I did not treat anything of anything and I doubt you see where i'm going with this.


It ain't your fault, the question you asked just happens to be a classic lead-in to the "the 2nd amendment is outdated" argument, by the gun grabbing left.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

here in the UK we have even less rights, I think infringing on your arguably out-of-date rights is a small price to pay for a safer America for everyone


----------



## Carrion (Aug 2, 2009)

If you value consistency, you can't value gun control on a moral level.


----------



## telecaster90 (Aug 2, 2009)

playstopause said:


> I did not treat anything of anything and I doubt you see where i'm going with this.



Sorry I jumped to a conclusion, basically The Atomic Ass was right in my reasoning. Where are you going with this?


----------



## Triple-J (Aug 2, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> here in the UK we have even less rights, I think infringing on your arguably out-of-date rights is a small price to pay for a safer America for everyone



The one thing that makes me mad as a muthafucker about the UK is TV licensing It drives me mad that a bunch of gestapo style pricks are paid to harrass you at your door and post you an endless chain of threatening letters until you start paying £140 a fucking year to own a TV!! 
I don't know of any other nation that does this and I find the idea of it bordering on offensive.


----------



## ShadyDavey (Aug 2, 2009)

Triple-J said:


> The one thing that makes me mad as a muthafucker about the UK is TV licensing It drives me mad that a bunch of gestapo style pricks are paid to harrass you at your door and post you an endless chain of threatening letters until you start paying £140 a fucking year to own a TV!!
> I don't know of any other nation that does this and I find the idea of it bordering on offensive.



It is offensive and I happen to know for a fact that the BBC certainly doesn't need the income - it's admitted as much in the past (god bless my rather cynical TV repairmen for the info).

(Sorry for the offtopic).

I have to respect Ted for his honesty and willingness to stand up to be counted....and to address another point made earlier:

We live in a country with draconian gun laws and frankly there's more Firearm-related crime now then ever before....and if they can't get firearms then the criminals are more than happy to use whatever comes to hand which is most likely a common or garden kitchen knife - people are just as dead regardless of whichever kills them. Its pointless to hurt legitimate owners when the Government refuses to deal harshly enough with criminals in the first place....dead offenders indeed.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 2, 2009)

The problem I have with the death penalty is that we have confirmed cases of people being convicted and put on death row, only to be exonerated years later (in some tragic cases, after the sentence has been carried out!)

I do find it interesting that guns severely increase suicide statistics way more than they increase murder statistics. Because a gun is such a quick, easy, and accessible method for suicide, it does not require the preparation and/or second thoughts allowed for by other methods. People who buy guns are more likely to injure or kill themselves or loved ones than criminals or people they wish to defend against.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

are we the only country that pays TV licensing?


----------



## Tiger (Aug 2, 2009)

Not sure what that is.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 2, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> here in the UK we have even less rights, I think infringing on your arguably out-of-date rights is a small price to pay for a safer America for everyone


The problem lies in your assumption that preventing the law abiding from owning firearms lowers crime, which is as directly contrary to ALL statistics on the matter now as it has been in the past when we've discussed this.

I feel as if I shouldn't have to point out the District of Columbia and it's crime rate.

Have a read on Kennesaw, GA. FightTheBias.com Newsletter Issue #15

Also, I've been to Morton's Grove, IL, and I can see why it's crime rate is not out of sight... They are too far north of Chicago for most thugs to travel, and a far piece east of Peoria. Very similar to Mason, where I live, which has a relatively low crime rate, as a result of it's rural location.

Dave, I'm sure you would feel very differently about firearms if you lived somewhere where carrying them is considered normal and you don't have the media force-feeding you mindless drivel over how safe we are(n't) without guns.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

I said nothing about crime.

I said *safer*.

it seems it's you who has made the assumption that if I lived in a different country I would feel differently about firearms because I would be influenced by a different media, which I resent. if I lived in a different country I would still be me, still have my views and still feel the way I do about gun ownership, regardless of media.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 2, 2009)

Triple-J said:


> The one thing that makes me mad as a muthafucker about the UK is TV licensing It drives me mad that a bunch of gestapo style pricks are paid to harrass you at your door and post you an endless chain of threatening letters until you start paying £140 a fucking year to own a TV!!
> I don't know of any other nation that does this and I find the idea of it bordering on offensive.


There is no bordering, it IS OFFENSIVE, IMO.

I have not had TV nor service for over a year and I couldn't be happier.

My suggestion is to get gestapo on their Asses. Pound them in the face when they start their spiel.



Scar Symmetry said:


> I said nothing about crime.
> 
> I said *safer*.
> 
> it seems it's you who has made the assumption that if I lived in a different country I would feel differently about firearms because I would be influenced by a different media, which I resent. if I lived in a different country I would still be me, still have my views and still feel the way I do about gun ownership, regardless of media.


Then I now have no idea what it is you're on to.  We'd all be much safer in padded cells, FWIW.

As for my assumption, your past comments on the subject have been rather blatant parrotings of the media frenzy over guns, with little to no hard facts and a lot of emotionally charged talk about mass-shootings...

And I was talking about media in general, as ours is as blatantly gun-grabbing-friendly as the UK's media. I mean seeing, in real life, a city/town where law-abiding citizens DO walk around armed, every day, NOT shooting each other. A place where a mass-shooting cannot happen by design.


----------



## ShadyDavey (Aug 2, 2009)

> And I was talking about media in general, as ours is as blatantly gun-grabbing-friendly as the UK's media. I mean seeing, in real life, a city/town where law-abiding citizens DO walk around armed, every day, NOT shooting each other. A place where a mass-shooting cannot happen by design.



Most sensible and sane members of the public can be trusted with to carry....that's been proven time and again. 

The UK pre-Hungerford didn't have anything like the freedom to carry as some places in the US enjoy currently but the laws pertaining to ownership were far less rigid because target shooting and hunting have both been popular passtimes in the UK and gun crime was far lower than in today's climate......the only inference I can draw here is that regardless of the controls that the government put in place after the fact, both in the UK and US there is just no evidence to support the stance that gun control = safer.

It's only people's perceptions that changed due to the media feeding frenzy. 

I'll quote Sly Stallone on this (this is only from a UK perspective so I have no idea what the US contingent feel on the subject) as there was a lot of sensationalistic journalism that latched onto the idea of associating Rambo with the violence in Hungerford (which is clearly bad reporting at best and misguided paranoia at worst). 

Sly had a lot to say at the time but the quote I recall was:



> Murderers are always saying, "God told me to kill" or "Jesus ordered me to kill" - so should the rest of us stop praying? There are always sick people out there who will hang their illness on to your hook.


There are ill people the world over and if they decide to suddenly go on a spree they'll do it regardless of being armed with an automatic, a kitchen knife or even an automobile.

10:1 if Ryan had suddenly gone postal in the middle of most US towns he wouldn't have got as far as victim 5, let alone 14....


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Then I now have no idea what it is you're on to.  We'd all be much safer in padded cells, FWIW.
> 
> As for my assumption, your past comments on the subject have been rather blatant parrotings of the media frenzy over guns, with little to no hard facts and a lot of emotionally charged talk about mass-shootings...
> 
> And I was talking about media in general, as ours is as blatantly gun-grabbing-friendly as the UK's media. I mean seeing, in real life, a city/town where law-abiding citizens DO walk around armed, every day, NOT shooting each other. A place where a mass-shooting cannot happen by design.



I'm talking about the 3-5 times a week I see that some kid in America has shot his brother because he found his dad's gun and stories similar to that.

I again resent that you have to resort to calling me a parrot to justify your own views... not very big nor clever. please find a legitimate way to defend your own corner as saying that I am merely 'copying' what you think I hear elsewhere is again, not a valid assumption.

what hard facts would you like me to provide? none of my post are emotionally charged nor have I ever mentioned mass shootings...

also the fact that you say a mass-shooting (which I never mentioned in the first place, I actually mentioned safety) simply cannot happen in a community where everyone is armed makes me wonder why you think that is.

if firearms are in the public they are - potentially - available to anyone who can get their hands on them. 

this includes: children, criminals and people with mental health issues.

how does that fit in with your design?


----------



## ShadyDavey (Aug 2, 2009)

Sadly it's a fact that there are accidents concerning firearms the world over.....a common response to that would be to blame the parents who don't teach their children discipline, or who don't take the responsibility of ensuring their firearms are safe. 

I just checked out the NRA statistics on accidental deaths for the most recent reporting period and there were more poisonings and automobile accidents than fatalities involving firearms.

Now, I know that I'm slightly pro-gun (with the greatest of respect to Dave I'm near twice his age and the UK society has changed quite dramatically over those years) but I do understand his concerns. Society as a whole is a less safe place regardless of firearms.

We rarely see any firearm's-related accidents in the UK....all the media reporting focuses on actual incidents and for what its worth we have more knife crime than gun crime. Those wishing to harm others will, as I said, find a way.


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 2, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm talking about the 3-5 times a week I see that some kid in America has shot his brother because he found his dad's gun and stories similar to that.



thats where education comes into play. if everyone within a household containing a gun was required to have some sort of certification on gun safety, this really wouldn't be a problem.



Scar Symmetry said:


> also the fact that you say a mass-shooting (which I never mentioned in the first place, I actually mentioned safety) simply cannot happen in a community where everyone is armed makes me wonder why you think that is.



_cant_ happen is a bit strong, personally i'd say less likely to happen, as a community where people carry guns, the people being shot at shoot back.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

and that's all I'm talking about - a safer America where records _are_ kept and if necessary, you would be able to trace every single weapon to a responsible owner. granted, there will be exceptions but it's a target to work towards to.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

ShadyDavey said:


> We rarely see any firearm's-related accidents in the UK....all the media reporting focuses on actual incidents and for what its worth we have more knife crime than gun crime.



that's because outside of the black market, getting hold of guns is EXTREMELY difficult. one can't help but feel that America would see the same results had they had the same difficulty.



ShadyDavey said:


> Those wishing to harm others will, as I said, find a way.



that's exactly my point. if guns are amongst the public where people like that exist, then there is a large potential for danger.


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 2, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> and that's all I'm talking about - a safer America where records _are_ kept and if necessary, you would be able to trace every single weapon to a responsible owner. granted, there will be exceptions but it's a target to work towards to.



i agree with you there. i think most of the useless gun laws in the US should be repealed, but i dont think that any random jackoff should be able to walk into a shop and buy a gun. i mean, to drive i car you need a license, and to get that license you need to demonstrate your knowledge of laws of the road and safety, so why should it be any different for guns?


----------



## ShadyDavey (Aug 2, 2009)

Getting hold of legal firearms is hard.....so the criminals seek out alternatives (Knife Crime for example is rife) or just end up trading Firearms - there are a lot of rental systems in place in the UK. People wishing to cause bodily harm will always do so regardless of the means I'm afraid 

I hate to drop Ross Kemp in on this but his examination of gangs in the UK has anecdotally been backed up by a Firearms Officer I know locally - its not terribly hard for criminals to get hold of illegal firearms, in fact, it's far easier than obtaining legal ones. 

(the episode on Liverpool gangs where a large proprtion of crime was commited with rental guns is quite an eye-opener).


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 2, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> that's exactly my point. if guns are amongst the public where people like that exist, then there is a large potential for danger.



that holds true with everything. cars are pretty dangerous, more people die from car-related deaths each year than from gun-related deaths. following that logic, maybe nobody should be allowed to have a car. only people who are specially certified and pass rigorous testing should be allowed to drive public busses and delivery trucks. i mean, it may be a massive inconvenience to pretty much anyone who doesn't live in a big city, but its okay because it might save a few lives!

the fact still remains that if criminals can't be trusted to follow the laws and not shoot people, how can they be trusted to follow the laws telling them they're not supposed to have a gun? instead of trying to get rid of the weapons people use to hurt eachother, why not just go straight to the source and get rid of the people who are trying to hurt others


----------



## ShadyDavey (Aug 2, 2009)

mnemonic said:


> i agree with you there. i think most of the useless gun laws in the US should be repealed, but i dont think that any random jackoff should be able to walk into a shop and buy a gun. i mean, to drive i car you need a license, and to get that license you need to demonstrate your knowledge of laws of the road and safety, so why should it be any different for guns?



Clearly, it shouldn't


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

mnemonic said:


> that holds true with everything. cars are pretty dangerous, more people die from car-related deaths each year than from gun-related deaths. following that logic, maybe nobody should be allowed to have a car. only people who are specially certified and pass rigorous testing should be allowed to drive public busses and delivery trucks. i mean, it may be a massive inconvenience to pretty much anyone who doesn't live in a big city, but its okay because it might save a few lives!



now you are misunderstanding my point as "no-one should be allowed guns" instead of "guns should be more strictly administrated and regulated" but if you want to go there then ok:

cars aren't built and designed to severely injure/kill people, cars are design to help ease our lives, not take them away. statistics don't take away from the fact that guns are *weapons*, comparing guns to cars just does not wash I'm afraid. 



mnemonic said:


> the fact still remains that if criminals can't be trusted to follow the laws and not shoot people, how can they be trusted to follow the laws telling them they're not supposed to have a gun? instead of trying to get rid of the weapons people use to hurt eachother, why not just go straight to the source and get rid of the people who are trying to hurt others



that's getting into a whole different ballpark. as I was saying earlier, what I'm talking about is stricter administration and regulation of firearm ownership, not getting rid of them altogether.

to summarize my point: it's better to have illegal firearms available to dangerous people than have illegal AND legal firearms available to dangerous people.


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 2, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I guess to summarize my point: it's better to have illegal firearms available to dangerous people than have illegal AND legal firearms available to dangerous people.



thats just like, your opinion man.

if you could back it up with some facts though, post some statistics that prove that a society where only criminals have guns is safer than a society where both law abiding citizens and criminals have guns, then i'll shut up.


----------



## signalgrey (Aug 2, 2009)

how about people just stop stupid things that make people want to shoot them?

simple really hahaha.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

mnemonic said:


> thats just like, your opinion man.
> 
> if you could back it up with some facts though, post some statistics that prove that a society where only criminals have guns is safer than a society where both law abiding citizens and criminals have guns, then i'll shut up.



I'm talking about availability here, though interesting that's the part of my post you chose to quote.


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 2, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm talking about availability here, though interesting that's the part of my post you chose to quote.



that was the only part of your post when i quoted it. brb the rest of your post



Scar Symmetry said:


> cars aren't built and designed to severely injure/kill people, cars are design to help ease our lives, not take them away. statistics don't take away from the fact that guns are *weapons*, comparing guns to cars just does not wash I'm afraid.


yet they injure and kill more people than guns do. regardless of what its designed to do. 

guns can also be used for more than just killing people too. they can be used for hunting (yes, i know, killing) but they can also be used for target shooting. lots of people shoot as a hobby, there are even contests and championships people can enter into to shoot competitively. 




Scar Symmetry said:


> to summarize my point: it's better to have illegal firearms available to dangerous people than have illegal AND legal firearms available to dangerous people.


if the system worked the way it should, legal firearms wouldn't be available to dangerous people. 

most dangerous people are either repeat offenders, or have some sort of underlying psychological problem, right? stronger regulation restricting the right of gun ownership to criminals (as stated earlier in this thread) would take care of that problem for the most part.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

mnemonic said:


> yet they injure and kill more people than guns do. regardless of what its designed to do.
> 
> guns can also be used for more than just killing people too. they can be used for hunting (yes, i know, killing) but they can also be used for target shooting. lots of people shoot as a hobby, there are even contests and championships people can enter into to shoot competitively.



I definitely see your viewpoint, hopefully you can see mine.



mnemonic said:


> if the system worked the way it should, legal firearms wouldn't be available to dangerous people.
> 
> most dangerous people are either repeat offenders, or have some sort of underlying psychological problem, right? stronger regulation restricting the right of gun ownership to criminals (as stated earlier in this thread) would take care of that problem for the most part.



exactly, there's an "if" involved. legal firearms _which are not traceable_ could be stolen by a criminal or even picked up and used very briefly by a child with tragic results.

it just saddens me when I hear a child, or anyone for that matter, has died from a situation involving guns that could more than likely have been easily avoided. I personally think that no matter who the owner of the gun, that every gun distributed should be traceable, as even law-abiding citizens are capable of poor judgement and gradual mental degradation.

looks like we're on the same page about regulation.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 2, 2009)

For those of you talking about how cars are more dangerous than guns: look at the sample size. Near as I can tell, there are more people in more cars every day than there are households with guns, and people use their guns much less often (in general.) Thus, it makes sense that there are more traffic fatalities than there are gun-related fatalities. 

Also, for those of you complaining about knives; a knife is dangerous, no doubt. But a gun is an order of magnitude more dangerous than a knife, as it works quickly, cleanly, efficiently, from a distance, and is capable of causing far more trauma for far less experience and training.


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 2, 2009)

to be honest, i can't really see any problems with registered firearms. hell, even guns being testfired before being sold, so the imprints from the barrel are recorded, i dont really see a problem with that, other than potentially a raise in registration costs. 

i think some people may raise the argument of "well i dont kill people why should i have to register my guns," but the fact remains that some people who have guns will, and it would be nice to trace them back to get a lead of some sort if they are stolen. and its a hell of a lot less of an inconvenience than just outright banning the legal ownership of guns. 

i mean, no matter what the regulations, there will always be some people who get ahold of guns illegally. guns are pretty much illegal for everyone in the UK, right? i think it would be laughable for someone to claim there aren't any illegally held guns in the UK still. the generic street thug over there may not be able to easily get their hands on one, so they grab a knife instead. but that leads into a whole different argument



TemjinStrife said:


> For those of you talking about how cars are more dangerous than guns: look at the sample size. Near as I can tell, there are more people in more cars every day than there are households with guns, and people use their guns much less often (in general.) Thus, it makes sense that there are more traffic fatalities than there are gun-related fatalities.



true, people come in more contact with a car each day than a gun, but i'm pretty sure the amount of legally held guns in the US is higher (or nearly as high i forget) as the amount of cars. i remember reading it a bit ago, i'll see if i can find it again


edit- ok here we go, estimated 238 to 276 million guns in the US (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0709-03.htm)

254 million registered passenger vehicles in the united states (http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/html/table_01_11.html)


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 2, 2009)

TemjinStrife said:


> For those of you talking about how cars are more dangerous than guns: look at the sample size. Near as I can tell, there are more people in more cars every day than there are households with guns, and people use their guns much less often (in general.) Thus, it makes sense that there are more traffic fatalities than there are gun-related fatalities.



exactly, cars are used all the time by pretty much every adult, fatalities involving cars are always going to be higher than weapons as they are normal every-day objects.



TemjinStrife said:


> Also, for those of you complaining about knives; a knife is dangerous, no doubt. But a gun is an order of magnitude more dangerous than a knife, as it works quickly, cleanly, efficiently, from a distance, and is capable of causing far more trauma for far less experience and training.



guns also bear something which a knife does not - a sense of power and security. a knife is an all purpose object - it is used in the kitchen, at the dinner table and in swiss army knives - holding knives is familiar, it's a normal every-day object.

a gun is not (outside of America at least) a normal every-day object, it is a weapon and gives the owner an extreme sense of power and security when used.

money gave man a sense of power and security and look where that's going...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 3, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm talking about the 3-5 times a week I see that some kid in America has shot his brother because he found his dad's gun and stories similar to that.


Another byproduct of gun control, oddly enough, and of course, poor parenting. If one adopts the stance of keeping guns a secret, to be hidden from children, this automatically makes it intriguing to the child.

My cousin, as an example, has 2 very young children, 3 and either 1-1/2 or 2, and the older one, if he sees an unattended gun, will NOT touch it, and will run to his father or mother and report it. The younger of the 2 is a little quieter, but she has seen this exchange, and has done the same thing at least once that I've seen. My cousin also keeps all of his firearms in a locked safe, to which the children have neither the key nor combination to.



Scar Symmetry said:


> I again resent that you have to resort to calling me a parrot to justify your own views... not very big nor clever. please find a legitimate way to defend your own corner as saying that I am merely 'copying' what you think I hear elsewhere is again, not a valid assumption.


That is merely the impression you've given me over several discussions on the topic, it's not intended to be clever.



Scar Symmetry said:


> what hard facts would you like me to provide?


Something that supports the concept that a disarmed citizenry is safer would fit the bill.



Scar Symmetry said:


> none of my post are emotionally charged nor have I ever mentioned mass shootings...


I feel I should apologize on this point, as I seem to have mistaken you for someone else. Which now leaves me wondering who I was thinking of. 



Scar Symmetry said:


> also the fact that you say a mass-shooting (which I never mentioned in the first place, I actually mentioned safety) simply cannot happen in a community where everyone is armed makes me wonder why you think that is.


There has never been such an incident in an area where gun ownership is high. The people who commit these crimes are universally attracted to helpless victims. Beyond this, when such an incident does occur, and the shooter is confronted with armed resistance, a large portion of the time they will surrender or commit suicide.



Scar Symmetry said:


> if firearms are in the public they are - potentially - available to anyone who can get their hands on them.
> 
> this includes: children, criminals and people with mental health issues.
> 
> how does that fit in with your design?


I would trust the children of certain parents with firearms. Why? Because some parents actually teach their children responsibility. As for criminals, that's a mixed bag. I don't think violent, repeat offenders should ever see life outside a jail cell again, simply for them being violent, repeat offenders. On the other hand, I've seen "criminals", who are not dangers to society, (A friend who was convicted of statutory rape because he slept with a girl who said she was 18, (he now has a family), a supervisor of mine who had a drug (pot) possession charge 20-some-odd years ago)

I think if someone really does commit a crime, and when they get out they attempt to better themselves, (as opposed to going right back to what they were doing), then they should have their records sealed after a while, as a felony commands all kinds of hurt beyond not being able to legally have firearms, at least in the U.S.

I don't think anyone is mentally healthy, to be honest. The world is proof of concept.



mnemonic said:


> that holds true with everything. cars are pretty dangerous, more people die from car-related deaths each year than from gun-related deaths. following that logic, maybe nobody should be allowed to have a car. only people who are specially certified and pass rigorous testing should be allowed to drive public busses and delivery trucks. i mean, it may be a massive inconvenience to pretty much anyone who doesn't live in a big city, but its okay because it might save a few lives!
> 
> the fact still remains that if criminals can't be trusted to follow the laws and not shoot people, how can they be trusted to follow the laws telling them they're not supposed to have a gun? instead of trying to get rid of the weapons people use to hurt eachother, why not just go straight to the source and get rid of the people who are trying to hurt others


I have developed a bit of thinking on this topic, actually.

People as a whole, do not realize that cars can kill. Sure, they see news reports of people killed in crashes, but cars aren't for killing, their for transportation. The error comes when they forget they are driving 2-tons of steel, plastic and rubber, and that it has inertia. To this end, I think there should be extensive driver certification, and yearly re-testing. I think the resulting lowering of the number of registered drivers would solve a WIDE variety of problems outside the scope of safety, such as traffic jams and oil-dependence.

Locking criminals away, never to be heard from again, is a very acceptable solution.



Scar Symmetry said:


> guns also bear something which a knife does not - a sense of power and security. a knife is an all purpose object - it is used in the kitchen, at the dinner table and in swiss army knives - holding knives is familiar, it's a normal every-day object.
> 
> a gun is not (outside of America at least) a normal every-day object, it is a weapon and gives the owner an extreme sense of power and security when used.


This is exactly true.

A gun, from my perspective, at least, IS a source of a sense of power and security. It's also a source of temperance and situational awareness, of which I notice more and more, that the general public does not have. Now I may be an exception to the rule, and it might be that most people would not be affected in the same positive way as I would.

Since I've started carrying, I've seen several situations unfold in my surroundings, that while they ended peacefully, the possibility existed for them to go very badly. Very few of them were situations where I would have needed to draw my gun, most were situations where I would be better off placing myself at a distance.

I realized recently these were situations I would not have noticed as little as 5 years ago, when I existed inside my own little world like most of the general populace seems to. This point in particular is probably going to make me spawn a new thread.


----------



## TemjinStrife (Aug 3, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> I have developed a bit of thinking on this topic, actually.
> 
> People as a whole, do not realize that cars can kill. Sure, they see news reports of people killed in crashes, but cars aren't for killing, their for transportation. The error comes when they forget they are driving 2-tons of steel, plastic and rubber, and that it has inertia. To this end, I think there should be extensive driver certification, and yearly re-testing. I think the resulting lowering of the number of registered drivers would solve a WIDE variety of problems outside the scope of safety, such as traffic jams and oil-dependence.
> 
> Locking criminals away, never to be heard from again, is a very acceptable solution.



Are these points related, or is this where your doublepost came in? 

If you're trying to be clever by likening automobiles to guns and drawing a simile between gun regulations and car regulation, it doesn't really work. Cars can kill through negligence, stupidity, improper maintenance, bad roads, and any number of factors. However, our society has structured itself so that the car is a necessity for the livelihood of a large portion of the population, whereas a gun is a hobby for some and defense for a very few. 

Also, ever try to get something done at a DMV location? The lines are usually absurd. Imagine those lines if everyone had to re-test once a year. The amount of money, time, and cost such a re-testing requires would be incredible, making such a program far from feasible, especially at this time. 

I could argue that such a re-test is mostly pointless for 99% of cases, as people are hardly likely to show any bad/dangerous habits (cell phone use, operating iPods, talking to friends in the car). Such retesting is only really useful for people who have had injuries or conditions develop that may impair driving, such as vision loss, reaction time loss (such as in the elderly), limb loss, or something similar, or for those who have not driven in an extended period of time.

Oh, and again arguing with the gun to car ratio... regardless of the number of guns in the US, cars see far more use. The average American is in a car at least once, usually twice, and often even more times per day. The amount of times a gun is used is a miniscule fraction of that amount. An accident or problem is far more likely due to said sample size.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Aug 3, 2009)

TemjinStrife said:


> Are these points related, or is this where your doublepost came in?
> 
> If you're trying to be clever by likening automobiles to guns and drawing a simile between gun regulations and car regulation, it doesn't really work. Cars can kill through negligence, stupidity, improper maintenance, bad roads, and any number of factors. However, our society has structured itself so that the car is a necessity for the livelihood of a large portion of the population, whereas a gun is a hobby for some and defense for a very few.


The quoted bit was all one post.

I'm not trying to draw a simile here, I am actually against gun regulation and for automobile regulation. Our society is structured around the automobile, yes, but I believe that to be an artificial structuring, which should be remedied.

I also believe the full burden of related expenses to the vehicle should be borne upon those who have cars, as opposed to society as a whole. My income taxes pay for road repairs equally, (supposedly, repairs are NOT being made at the rate money is collected for the purpose), yet I sparingly operate a vehicle which causes very little to no road degradation, (600lb bike), compared to someone driving a 5-6,000lb SUV, which does a lot more damage to the road, including leaving 2 noticeable depressions on the sides of the lane, about where their wheels are. Then there are people who drive for simply no purpose at all. No destination, no purpose.



TemjinStrife said:


> Also, ever try to get something done at a DMV location? The lines are usually absurd. Imagine those lines if everyone had to re-test once a year. The amount of money, time, and cost such a re-testing requires would be incredible, making such a program far from feasible, especially at this time.
> 
> I could argue that such a re-test is mostly pointless for 99% of cases, as people are hardly likely to show any bad/dangerous habits (cell phone use, operating iPods, talking to friends in the car). Such retesting is only really useful for people who have had injuries or conditions develop that may impair driving, such as vision loss, reaction time loss (such as in the elderly), limb loss, or something similar, or for those who have not driven in an extended period of time.


Yes, I've been victim to the DMV's voluminous inefficiency.

The specific testing regimen I have been developing does take into account all of the typical factors that would not normally show up in testing.



TemjinStrife said:


> Oh, and again arguing with the gun to car ratio... regardless of the number of guns in the US, cars see far more use. The average American is in a car at least once, usually twice, and often even more times per day. The amount of times a gun is used is a miniscule fraction of that amount. An accident or problem is far more likely due to said sample size.


This is correct. But then there are only 5 rules to obey for firearms, which if followed, prevent nearly all accidents.


----------



## JakeRI (Aug 3, 2009)

okay, so i am coming back into this late.

Pertaining to cars

Car accidents attribute to at least 40,000 deaths yearly in america.
Gun accidents hover around 1500, but lets call it 2000

Lets say 100% of Americans over 18 own cars.
Roughly 40-45% of americans own guns.

thats a 5:1 ratio of car deaths over gun deaths. should we ban cars?


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 3, 2009)

ok let's talk about fatalities - in the USA there is around 30,000 gun fatalities a year and this includes murder, suicide, accidents and legal intervention.

car fatalities in the USA are as you say around 40,000 - so that's only a 1/4 difference.


----------



## JakeRI (Aug 3, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> ok let's talk about fatalities - in the USA there is around 30,000 gun fatalities a year and this includes murder, suicide, accidents and legal intervention.
> 
> car fatalities in the USA are as you say around 40,000 - so that's only a 1/4 difference.



however that isn't the guns fault. if there were no guns it would be murder via knife, suicide via being hung ect. No regulation will end the intention to kill.

its the accident statistic that is the truly important one, because that speaks about the danger of the gun itself


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 3, 2009)

that is arguable my friend.

you could say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but that's something that has never made sense to me personally. when people say that I can understand their viewpoint, I just don't think it makes sense.


----------



## JakeRI (Aug 3, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> that is arguable my friend.
> 
> you could say "guns don't kill people, people kill people" but that's something that has never made sense to me personally. when people say that I can understand their viewpoint, I just don't think it makes sense.



yeah i hear you.

but we have been slaughtering in far worse ways for thousands of years before guns. sad but true


----------



## ShadyDavey (Aug 3, 2009)

Guns kill people but only after someone has pulled the trigger......if their intent is to cause injury or death then they'll do it regardless of the tool. Removing guns from the equation simply inflates another statistic rather than solving the problem which isn't guns, its the criminals behind the acts.

I think that in the best case scenario removing all firearms from cicrulation (which given the huge amount of firearms is never going to happen....in fact I doubt even the use of illegal firearms could successfully be impacted, let alone curtailed) except those in use by the military or law enforcement will only remove the vast percentage of firearm accidents - the murder statistic will remain fairly constant I'm sure.


----------



## Carrion (Aug 3, 2009)

Why do police officers use guns to defend themselves? Because they work.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 3, 2009)

Carrion said:


> Why do police officers use guns to defend themselves? Because they work.



Except for those countless instances where you see an American police officer firing wildly in the general area of the perp. So much for the training part of gun control when people paid to use them are prone to panic and blind fire in the presence of bystanders...


----------



## orb451 (Aug 3, 2009)

^^^^Countless instances? Exactly where are these countless instances of police blindly firing into crowds occuring? You mean in Iran??? Elsewhere in the Middle East maybe??? Or do you mean police blindly firing non-lethal rounds (which have in some cases resulted in civilian deaths, Fenway / Landsdowne St. incident). Surely you don't think that police firing their weapons willy nilly on a whim occurs daily over here in the US right???


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 3, 2009)

orb451 said:


> ^^^^Countless instances? Exactly where are these countless instances of police blindly firing into crowds occuring? You mean in Iran??? Elsewhere in the Middle East maybe??? Or do you mean police blindly firing non-lethal rounds (which have in some cases resulted in civilian deaths, Fenway / Landsdowne St. incident). Surely you don't think that police firing their weapons willy nilly on a whim occurs daily over here in the US right???



You misunderstand me. I mean there are so many videos we see on Night Cops and other police shows when a perp gets out of his car when the police officer approaches and the police officer panics, grabs his gun and starts firing his entire clip in the general direction of the fleeing perp while traffic is driving by.


----------



## orb451 (Aug 3, 2009)

^^^^Well I must have missed those clips and shows because to my knowledge that kind of thing happens here once in a great while but is far from routine or typical. And not saying it's *right* or that it should happen, there's a lot of terrible police officers out there, just as there are a lot of terrible employees at the post office or the DMV... but people at the post office and DMV don't typically carry guns (thank god).


----------



## Carrion (Aug 3, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> You misunderstand me. I mean there are so many videos we see on Night Cops and other police shows when a perp gets out of his car when the police officer approaches and the police officer panics, grabs his gun and starts firing his entire clip in the general direction of the fleeing perp while traffic is driving by.



That's quite scientific.


----------



## Tiger (Aug 3, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> You misunderstand me. I mean there are so many videos we see on Night Cops and other police shows when a perp gets out of his car when the police officer approaches and the police officer panics, grabs his gun and starts firing his entire clip in the general direction of the fleeing perp while traffic is driving by.



You gotta just get outta here with that one man...no. 

Plus Ive seen about 4 episodes of Cops my entire life where a gun was actually used. 2 were by the perp. And I watch me some Cops.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Aug 3, 2009)

Carrion said:


> That's quite scientific.



I never claimed it was, chief.



Tiger said:


> You gotta just get outta here with that one man...no.
> 
> Plus Ive seen about 4 episodes of Cops my entire life where a gun was actually used. 2 were by the perp. And I watch me some Cops.



 I've seen plenty on Road Wars and Night cops.


----------



## IDLE (Aug 4, 2009)

I agree with him, but I feel like he oversimplified the issue. There is a problem with irresponsible gun ownership leading to innocent deaths as well. There are just a lot of people that shouldn't have guns, they are too stupid.

I hope this is the only issue I ever agree with him on again LOL.


----------



## mnemonic (Aug 4, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> I never claimed it was, chief.



i think what he means by 'not scientific' is that you're inferring that american police fire wildly into crowds on a regular basis while trying to capture a suspect with your sole evidence for this being 'i saw it on tv.' not exactly a credible source. 

whenever i watch COPS, every person they ever pull over is always guilty of selling crack/on crack or has a pocket full of hypodermic needles. that doesn't mean every person that gets pulled over its automatically guilty, it just means they only show the interesting stops on TV.


----------



## Forresterc (Aug 4, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> You misunderstand me. I mean there are so many videos we see on Night Cops and other police shows when a perp gets out of his car when the police officer approaches and the police officer panics, grabs his gun and starts firing his entire clip in the general direction of the fleeing perp while traffic is driving by.



That's is shitty evidence to support an argument plz present something better.

How about some statistics. Like how often gun accidents occur? How many legal guns do criminals use? How many times have someone had their life saved because they had the tools to defend themselves?

There are pros and cons to both sides, and both sides over hype them.

(from here on is opinion)
From my personal research, I support gun ownership in America, but i think the government needs to do a better job of managing gun dealing. To often governments make stupid laws that are only built to appeal to anti-gun supporters. There is solid evidence that shows allowing competent people to own guns does lower crime rates (now just compare that to gun accident rates, which i haven't done)
(remember that was only an opinion, not fact or good evidence).


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> here in the UK we have even less rights, I think infringing on your arguably out-of-date rights is a small price to pay for a safer America for everyone



Okay... I'll bite.

Nevermind that the UK is turning into a goddamned police state, you're pretending - and this is a HUGE stretch, well past logic of any kind at all - that guns are why we have more gun fatalities. This is simply not the case.

Nevermind that I have posted - and linked to, on several occasions - a *very* generous analysis of gun statistics in the States that showed beyond any argument I've found that guns *save more lives than they take*. I gave concessions left and right - using the by-no-stretch-pro-gun Clinton administration's numbers, cutting my own argument down by *orders of magnitude* at every step to ensure that I couldn't possibly be overestimating the possibility of a gun being helpful to an innocent defender, and so on - and *still* wound up having no choice but to conclude that more people defended themselves with guns than were killed by gun use in crime.

Nevermind that gun use in homicides has been going down, as that just couldn't possibly happen if there were a bulletproof case for guns causing violence due to our ever-increasing ownership of guns.

Nevermind that many people here would not be alive if it weren't for someone responsibly carrying a firearm to defend themselves, and that countless places in America where guns have been practically or outright banned (everywhere from schools - how well did that work, VA Tech? - to DC and Chicago) have demonstrated quite clearly that gun bans don't work.

I'm sure our rights are 'arguably outdated', because you've given *such* good arguments that guns cause violence and shown that absolutely nothing else (volatility of specific groups and areas, a generally fucked mindset held by a lot of Americans, a culture that has jerked itself off to being the 'tough guy', et cetera) could be a bigger cause of our violence problems, and since you've shown so clearly that freedom is valid currency for safety (even despite the fact that our police forces aren't required to protect private citizens) I guess we're really out of options.

At some point a phrase like 'impossible outside the black market' popped up. This statement only betrays an amazing lack of knowledge of the 'black market' in the States, especially with guns - it's no more fitting to say that milk is hard to purchase outside grocery stores! What part of "the kind of criminals who steal from and kill others don't pay much attention to supposed gun bans" doesn't make sense? Guns are very close to cars as far as number in circulation, so the attempts at passing off car death rates as a statistical problem are total garbage - further, innocent people can rarely use *cars* to defend themselves, but millions of people have used a gun to prevent a crime or save their own life and the deterrence of an armed population has simply immeasurable effect on crime probability!

Scar Symmetry, and others who think that banning guns will solve our problems, you have a very hard case to make. At the end of the day, it's honestly impossible - even giving you guys all the ground I could possibly give, I came out on top with the aforementioned analysis (which, oddly, hasn't been questioned or argued *once* in my presence) - and you're committing a huge disservice by so nonchalantly dismissing all other possibilities for reducing violence. Further, you're leaving out the fundamental difference between a citizen and a subject (namely, one has power and the other has 'power' on paper only) and a large part of the motivation behind guaranteeing the legal right to gun ownership in the first place, all while *wonderfully* failing to give solid arguments that gun restrictions improve safety despite the wonderful failures of the 'clear-cut' Brady Bill and Assault Weapons Ban to do anything at all. If you're going to pretend to be logical, at least give logical arguments - or even arguments of greater complexity than "guns are bad, durr!", for fuck's sake, *anything*!

The argument that gun rights are 'outdated' because they happen to be a few centuries old makes no sense on its own - unless you can show how restrictions on freedom of speech, the press, the right to trial by jury, the right to avoid self-incrimination, and other such rights are 'outdated' such association is complete and utter *bullshit* and you should simply be ashamed of yourselves for pretending that truth fades with time.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

Scar Symmetry said:


> ok let's talk about fatalities - in the USA there is around 30,000 gun fatalities a year and this includes murder, suicide, accidents and legal intervention.
> 
> car fatalities in the USA are as you say around 40,000 - so that's only a 1/4 difference.



How does it make any sense to add *suicides*? How many people do you know who think 'Gorsh, I'd've done killed myself but there was absolutely no way to do it other than a bullet to the temple!', in all seriousness? Gun suicides are the majority of 'gun deaths' in the States, so I'm sure keeping them in the argument helps you try to impress people with large, misunderstood numbers, but should Emo Ed's desire to kill himself really impact my ability to defend myself? Suicides happen, and pretending that they can stop if we just ban guns is incredibly ignorant if it's even passed off as an attempt at a logical argument.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 4, 2009)

1) I'm not trying to impress *anyone*, but by the length of that there post, it looks like you are.

2) I did not mention banning guns once in this thread, if you can find where I did, please quote it. way to go off on a tangent attempting to counter something I wasn't even talking about.

3) you last post is just plain stupid. 

have fun drawing up another couple of paragraphs of waffle that I won't read.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

1: Questioning my motives rather than making an argument against my statements is really not a great way to be useful - and the fact that you're using the frequently-misquoted figure I mentioned there instead of using what is relevant contradicts you. I have no need to impress people, but I'd like to see a *decent* argument for once - I wasn't expecting it out of you, but hopefully someone can come in. I don't make posts any longer than necessary to put my point across.

2: Given the other nonsense you've spouted off over guns, and the fact that my argument was against any further infringements on our rights, you can accept my apologies for inappropriately lumping you in with people who are in favor of further gun control as soon as you put up a post that is of some real substance.

3: And you're a big, ugly poopeyhead. Way to make a valid point.

Do you ignore *everything* that might contradict your oh-so-safe worldview, or do you just make special exceptions for me?

(Also, whoever thought that I "have just severely embarassed [my]self" could probably do better by showing how I did so, as I doubt that conclusion will be reached by anyone who hasn't already assumed that gun statistics can be butchered in any way possible as long as the butchering makes guns look worse.)

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 4, 2009)

1) I would not dare challenge your opinions, as all of your opinions are obviously fact.

2) apology would be unaccepted on account of you claiming anything I say to be nonsense, though the feeling is entirely mutual.

3) I make special exceptions for you Jeff, you deserve it.

you're such a party pooper Jeff, when you chime in it stops being a discussion and turns into you relentlessly naming and shaming anyone who doesn't share your opinion.

want to know why I don't bother arguing back? read the above paragraph.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

I have no problem with people having different opinions as long as there's a decent argument for them - plenty of people pull that off, but you have yet to join their ranks. Plenty of discussions have survived me, believe it or not, and after people like you leave they seem to be more productive - I'm not the one losing due to from your absence, so have fun.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Aug 4, 2009)

I hope you won't mind telling me who put you in charge of deciding what posts are of 'substance', which are 'valid' arguments and when threads become 'productive'? I might get in touch with them myself and see if they can make me part of the internet police too.

basically what you are saying is you don't mind people having different opinions (gee whizz thanks Jeff!) so long as they meet your standards. 

you sure are a swell guy.

I'll post where I feel the need to Jeff, I just won't argue with you as it's a lot of effort for me to answer back to someone I don't need to justify myself to.

I have no problem justifying my posts to people which I believe are worthy of my posting time, but sadly you are not one of those people.

I'm sure you'll be losing sleep over it.


----------



## JBroll (Aug 4, 2009)

My 'standards' are just having some basic grasp of the facts involved and something resembling logic - I'm not going to pretend that I have all the answers, but when I think something is wrong I say so. You act like I go around banging down people's doors for not agreeing with me and seem to be mistaking my tone pretty seriously, but if that illusion makes your life easier then enjoy it.

Jeff


----------



## DDDorian (Aug 4, 2009)

Fucking hell, not again. 

Scar, you've been shut down before on far more benign topics than this by posters with far more restraint than JBroll. Surely you've learned _something_ by now? If you're gonna make contentious statements, especially in P&CE and _especially_ in the weekly gun control thread, then you'd better make damn sure that they hold up. Heat, kitchen, etc.

JBroll, take up golf or someting.

I'll end this thread on a slightly more heterosexual note: GUNS. Locked.


----------

