# ATTN: Anti-gun sevenstring.org members



## willith (Dec 25, 2008)

Rather than re-cap it here, I will link you to my original post, so that you may gain some outside perspective through reading others responses.

Somebody broke into my apt today- held him at gunpoint (serious) - Bodybuilding.com Forums


I've never met anyone in my life who's been in a robbery attempt involving guns- I think for some of you, you will learn something, just as I have. And if not, it's still somewhat entertaining. 


Undecided as to whether or not I will respond here, as I've pretty much said my peace on the bb.com forum, and seeing as how most things I say here are construed as "fightin' words".

130 responses and not one negative comment. And try to keep in mind, it's teh MISC. for gods'sake.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

Holy fucking shit cakes. I can't believe you didn't shoot the guy honestly, permit or no. You're lucky you were able to control yourself and think rationally. That guy had to be pretty fucking dumb to advance on a guy with a loaded gun pointed straight at them, or more likely, high as fuck.


----------



## FortePenance (Dec 25, 2008)

Fucking badass story, glad you got out of it.


----------



## eleven59 (Dec 25, 2008)

Cool that nothing bad happened, I'm glad you didn't shoot him. As JJ put it, you're lucky you were able to control yourself and think rationally, because there's a lot of people (the guy breaking in for example) who wouldn't have been able to.

Regardless of reading that whole story, I still say there is no reason for you to _need_ to own a gun. 

I'm still anti-gun, and think shooting him, regardless of legality, would have been a stupid move.

By your own statements, the guy breaking into your apartment should have been carrying a gun, and then you'd be dead.


----------



## telecaster90 (Dec 25, 2008)

I'm glad you're alright, dude 

What state did you purchase the gun in?



> Regardless of reading that whole story, I still say there is no reason for you to need to own a gun.
> 
> I'm still anti-gun, and think shooting him, regardless of legality, would have been a stupid move.
> 
> By your own statements, the guy breaking into your apartment should have been carrying a gun, and then you'd be dead.



So what, you would rather the OP not have had a gun? The situation would have turned out way different if that was the case, the robber definitely would not have just asked to leave the door, he more than likely would have attacked the unarmed owner of the house. I'm not following your logic.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> By your own statements, the guy breaking into your apartment should have been carrying a gun, and then you'd be dead.



If he's breaking into people's houses and shit, while they're home, garaunteed he's not the sharpest tool in the shed.

Between my roommate and i, we have 3 handguns and a shotgun in the apartment, so theres my stance on gun ownership.


----------



## eleven59 (Dec 25, 2008)

telecaster90 said:


> So what, you would rather the OP not have had a gun? The situation would have turned out way different if that was the case, the robber definitely would not have just asked to leave the door, he more than likely would have attacked the unarmed owner of the house. I'm not following your logic.



Or, he could have picked up a lamp, or something else heavy to intimidate the guy. I knew a guy who took on 3 guys, one of whom had a knife, and he managed to sit on one of them until the cops showed up, despite taking a knife to the arm. Reality of the situation is, no one died, and all 3 guys ended up being caught because the guy he sat on turned on the other 2. 

All I'm saying is, yes, it's good you defended yourself, but there is no reason to say "everyone should own a gun", because then the other guy would have had a gun too, and then it's just survival of the quickest.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> Or, he could have picked up a lamp, or something else heavy to intimidate the guy. I knew a guy who took on 3 guys, one of whom had a knife, and he managed to sit on one of them until the cops showed up, despite taking a knife to the arm. Reality of the situation is, no one died, and all 3 guys ended up being caught because the guy he sat on turned on the other 2.
> 
> All I'm saying is, yes, it's good you defended yourself, but there is no reason to say "everyone should own a gun", because then the other guy would have had a gun too, and then it's just survival of the quickest.



Dude had a crowbar, and you're advocating a lamp? At least advocate a knife or something ;p


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 25, 2008)

Actually if you had shot the guy and he wasn't armed the OP would have been in possible legal hot water anyway. Shooting an unarmed man, thief or not, at least causes the D.A.'s office to investigate, crowbar or not.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Actually if you had shot the guy and he wasn't armed the OP would have been in possible legal hot water anyway. Shooting an unarmed man, thief or not, at least causes the D.A.'s office to investigate, crowbar or not.



Castle Doctrine in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Mass. State Law said:


> Section 8A. In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling. There shall be no duty on said occupant to retreat from such person unlawfully in said dwelling.


----------



## eleven59 (Dec 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Dude had a crowbar, and you're advocating a lamp? At least advocate a knife or something ;p



By "lamp" I just meant the nearest heavy object that can be used to bash someone's head in  A knife is needlessly excessive. You can knock someone out and keep them there until the cops come. If you stab them to death, it looks more like a crime of passion.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> A knife is needlessly excessive. You can knock someone out and keep them there until the cops come. If you stab them to death, it looks more like a crime of passion.



I think a knife is more than reasonable in the fact the dude had a crowbar, though. I dont know how you could play the "Crime of Passion" on someone breaking into your house that you've never met. "I was just so passionate about him breaking into my house, i had to stab him 52 times!"


----------



## eleven59 (Dec 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I think a knife is more than reasonable in the fact the dude had a crowbar, though. I dont know how you could play the "Crime of Passion" on someone breaking into your house that you've never met. "I was just so passionate about him breaking into my house, i had to stab him 52 times!"



It's called unreasonable force. You can subdue him a million different ways, why choose to kill him in a bloody and painful way?

"Crime of passion" just means letting your emotion (in this case fear/anger) take over and using unreasonable force.

No offense, but had you grown up in a culture that didn't advocate killing people who touch your stuff, you'd see things differently. If someone broke into my house and tried to steal my stuff, I'd avoid confronting them, let them take my stuff, and buy new stuff with the insurance money after I call the cops. It's just stuff. If they threatened violence, I'd defend myself, but if they break into my apartment and aren't threatening violence, I'm not going to use violence against them. 

Most robbers aren't looking to kill/hurt anyone, they're assuming there's no one home and that they can take the stuff and leave without conflict. The fact that he had a crow bar was not as a weapon, he used it to get into the building. I'm sure if he had walked in looking angry and said "What the hell are you doing in here? Get out of my apartment before I call the cops" he would have run off just as quickly. If he then threatened violence, there's plenty of things in arms reach at any time that can be used as a non-lethal weapon.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> It's called unreasonable force. You can subdue him a million different ways, why choose to kill him in a bloody and painful way?
> 
> "Crime of passion" just means letting your emotion (in this case fear/anger) take over and using unreasonable force.



Refer to my castle doctrine post. If you believe someone is intent to harm you or kill you in your own home, you can use lethal force. At least in a majority of the states (Mass., the OPs homestate and Fl, here, for example).


----------



## eleven59 (Dec 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> Refer to my castle doctrine post. If you believe someone is intent to harm you or kill you in your own home, you can use lethal force. At least in a majority of the states (Mass., the OPs homestate and Fl, here, for example).



Yeah, just because it's the law doesn't make it right. You have to think reasonably as a human being. Did you need to kill him? No. Just like he didn't need to kill you or rob you. Why sink to his level, or worse? 

Besides, despite being within the law, this guy didn't give him a chance to see if his intent was to kill or harm him. He walked in with a gun already drawn, _assuming_ he was going to harm or kill him. It's easy to say "Oh yeah, I shot him dead because he was going to hurt/kill me" after the fact without them being able to doubt you, but you have to live with yourself and your own decision, deciding whether or not you really were at any risk.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> Yeah, just because it's the law doesn't make it right. You have to think reasonably as a human being. Did you need to kill him? No. Just like he didn't need to kill you or rob you. Why sink to his level, or worse?



its not to promote killing. Yeah, if you dont HAVE to shoot the guy, great. Get him to sit in the corner till the cops show up. Im just saying, if the guy tries to assault you or kill you, you have the right to use lethal force to defend yourself, when in your own house. Outside your house, if you have any reasonable option to retreat, you _must _purse that. However, in your own home, you are not required to try to escape.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

If someone broke into my house with ANYTHING, and I had a gun, I'd plug the motherfucker. I'm a skinny, short, and don't know how to fight worth a shit. I'm not putting myself in swinging distance of someone who could probably over power me. I'm probably buying a shotgun when I get my own house. And I've been assaulted before and someone almost put an axe into my head. I had a shovel which he grabbed and took away from me and proceeded to pound the shit out of me. Buddy got caught and got charged obviously, and he had tried to claim self defense because I had a shovel. Judge said I could have killed him, and I'd be in the clear, and he even brought up the size difference, saying one punch could have killed me had I fallen on something, etc.

To me, there is no such thing as unnecessary force when you don't know what the guy COULD be packing or what he's capable of. Just because he doesn't have it in his hand at the moment doesn't mean it's not tucked into his pants or something. 

I'm not advocating people go out and buy an assault rifle or something, and I don't think everyone NEEDS to own a gun, but I think that choice should exist for those of us that want them. Hell, I've often thought about going through all the hoops they make you jump through here to purchase a handgun legally, but it's a lot of hassle for something I just want, don't necessarily need. A shotgun will get the job done, and is a lot easier to get, so I guess our gun control does work for people like me


----------



## eleven59 (Dec 25, 2008)

I'm not saying that no one should own a gun or use it for self-defense, I'm just saying you should never say that _everyone_ should own a gun, because there's a lot of people out there who _really_ shouldn't because they're not smart enough to use it properly  (by this I don't mean anyone in this thread  )


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> I'm not saying that no one should own a gun or use it for self-defense, I'm just saying you should never say that _everyone_ should own a gun, because there's a lot of people out there who _really_ shouldn't because they're not smart enough to use it properly  (by this I don't mean anyone in this thread  )



I dont think everyone should own a gun, personally. I think its a bit too easy to get a gun, making it easy to get guns in the hands of fucking psychopaths who shouldnt have them. 

So i think that mentally stable non-felon citizens (ie, capable) people who want guns should have the option to purchase them.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> I'm not saying that no one should own a gun or use it for self-defense, I'm just saying you should never say that _everyone_ should own a gun, because there's a lot of people out there who _really_ shouldn't because they're not smart enough to use it properly  (by this I don't mean anyone in this thread  )



On that I think we can all agree. I'm all for strict gun control, but at least make it doable for people who are of reasonable intelligence, etc.

For instance, here, to get a handgun legally, you have to join a gun club, and take a fuck ton of courses, and get a lot of certifications. The only part I might take out of that is the gun club part, since their justification for that is that it has to be used for sport, etc. Well, I don't particularly want to join a gun club, I would just like the hand gun, and would trade doing a lot of background checks and more certifications for it, and extra training. Whether that's a bad or good idea, I don't know  But like I said, I don't NEED one, I would just like to have one. I would probably take it apart and shit like that since I like tinkering with things  A shotgun will suffice for home defense for me.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> On that I think we can all agree. I'm all for strict gun control, but at least make it doable for people who are of reasonable intelligence, etc.
> 
> For instance, here, to get a handgun legally, you have to join a gun club, and take a fuck ton of courses, and get a lot of certifications. The only part I might take out of that is the gun club part, since their justification for that is that it has to be used for sport, etc. Well, I don't particularly want to join a gun club, I would just like the hand gun, and would trade doing a lot of background checks and more certifications for it, and extra training. Whether that's a bad or good idea, I don't know  But like I said, I don't NEED one, I would just like to have one. I would probably take it apart and shit like that since I like tinkering with things  A shotgun will suffice for home defense for me.



Wow, in florida, you hand them your drivers license, fill out a paper, get a background check, wait 3 days, and if you're not a felon, or a psychopath, go get your gun. I think it should be a _bit_ harder than that, ie, having courses, etc., though.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

That's Canada for you. That's why hardly anyone owns a handgun. To get a shotgun or rifle I think you just take hunter's safety, get a permit, and buy the shotgun anywheres. I don't even know WHERE you buy handguns here, I think you have to import them from the US (at least around here, we don't have many gun shops, or any I've ever seen a handgun in) and go through THAT big hassle.

But, I'm not complaining too much, like I said, the only part I have a beef with is the gun club thing.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> That's Canada for you. That's why hardly anyone owns a handgun. To get a shotgun or rifle I think you just take hunter's safety, get a permit, and buy the shotgun anywheres. I don't even know WHERE you buy handguns here, I think you have to import them from the US (at least around here, we don't have many gun shops, or any I've ever seen a handgun in) and go through THAT big hassle.



See, here in florida, you can walk into walmart, show them your drivers license, and walk out of the store with a shotgun. 
Like i said, gun laws here = too leinient.


----------



## zimbloth (Dec 25, 2008)

Mark told me this story yesterday, and I'm definitely glad he had a gun. I think you should have to pass all kinds of tests (mental health especially) and go through the right channels to own a gun, but I think it's still an important right to have. I know I plan on getting one soon. Preferably an Uzi


----------



## Toshiro (Dec 25, 2008)

I scared the mother-fuck out of the bug man when he came in unannounced one day(usually the office is with them and call out before entering). Having someone bear down on you with 3' of sharpened steel is quite frightening, I guess..


----------



## Toshiro (Dec 25, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> See, here in florida, you can walk into walmart, show them your drivers license, and walk out of the store with a shotgun.
> Like i said, gun laws here = too leinient.



AFAIK not many, if any, Wally Worlds sell shotguns anymore. None of the ones here do.

Didn't Jeb pass that law that if you have a concealed permit you could defend yourself outside your house in FL? I find it funny that people can walk around with 9mm handguns on them, and I used to get hassled by the 5-O for going to the dojo with a sword inside it's bag.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

Toshiro said:


> I scared the mother-fuck out of the bug man when he came in unannounced one day(usually the office is with them and call out before entering). Having someone bear down on you with 3' of sharpened steel is quite frightening, I guess..



I hate that shit. The people at my last apartment complex had the worst habit of knocking once, waiting a half second and start unlocking my door. Having been asleep a couple of the times, its really unsettling.  Generally, i just yelled at them and that seemed to solve the problem.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

Toshiro said:


> AFAIK not many, if any, Wally Worlds sell shotguns anymore. None of the ones here do.
> 
> Didn't Jeb pass that law that if you have a concealed permit you could defend yourself outside your house in FL? I find it funny that people can walk around with 9mm handguns on them, and I used to get hassled by the 5-O for going to the dojo with a sword inside it's bag.



The walmart right near my apartment in Gainesville sells a wide variety of shotguns and rifles. I think its a location thing. If its more rural, they carry more hunting shit (Guns included). The walmarts near my parents place in tampa bay dont carry rifles or shotguns. 

I dont know about Jeb's law, but i'm fairly certain the castle doctrine applies when inside your car, too.


----------



## ILdÐÆMcº³ (Dec 25, 2008)

I completely agree with responsible/rational people owning guns. I just wish there was a way to keep them away from the people that use them to install their satellite dishes.


----------



## D-EJ915 (Dec 25, 2008)

I have a few rackmount computers outside my door in case any noob comes up the stairs, no way you would survive getting hit in the head with one of those


----------



## thedownside (Dec 25, 2008)

Toshiro said:


> I scared the mother-fuck out of the bug man when he came in unannounced one day(usually the office is with them and call out before entering). Having someone bear down on you with 3' of sharpened steel is quite frightening, I guess..



haha, i hear ya man... one of the many walls in my place that looks this way 







you all can have your guns, crowbars or whatever you want. cqb in an apartment/house? i'll take any of those and you arent leaving with the hand that was holding your gun.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

They are if they see you coming and shoot you


----------



## thedownside (Dec 25, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> They are if they see you coming and shoot you



in an apartment? not likely they are gonna see me and be able to move enough, unless they have xray vision or are swat or something (real swat, not the rcmp wanna-be's we have here, lol)


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

What if you don't live in a tiny, cramped apartment? 

I'm not saying you couldn't get take down an attacker with a knife, I'm just saying if someone is 15 ft away from me on the other side of the living room and they have a hand gun pointed at me, and I have a sword, I think whoever is going to walk away is clear.


----------



## Se7enMeister (Dec 25, 2008)

I was witness to a shooting in my house,
this summer sometime at about 2:30am two guys broke in to my family's house. The sound of them cracking a small window woke me and my dad on the second floor. We dont mess around with shit like this, so I grabbed my paintball gun and he got his .45 he keeps in is bed side desk. He runs down stairs to the living room where we see both of the guys, one is about 3 feet from my dad and is going through my mom's desk. The next thing that happend was that he raised up a hammer he had in his hand with the intent of hitting my dad (who is 6,4 and a life long swimmer) and my dad popped him in the thigh with one round and that sent him down, the other guy who is on the other side of the room tried to open a window to get out. But I got him with about 20 shots from my paintball gun and he is on the ground crying. 
After that we held them down untill the cops arrived and took them away. They ended up being a couple of high school kids who thought we were gone and wanted to see what it was like to break into a house, they were both white upper middle class dumbass teens. 

Long story short,
The kid my dad shot now walks with a limp
both are out on bail
I have been threatened by their jock friends to "Watch myself"


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

Se7enMeister said:


> I have been threatened by their jock friends to "Watch myself"



You think they'd learn a lesson: Don't fuck with the guys with the guns


----------



## Se7enMeister (Dec 25, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> You think they'd learn a lesson: Don't fuck with the guys with the guns



i know, that .45 wasn't any thing compared to my dad's collection. I now have 2 .22 rifles and a AR-15 chambered .245 in a safe in my bedroom closet, a nice birthday present from the cousins


----------



## thedownside (Dec 25, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> What if you don't live in a tiny, cramped apartment?
> 
> I'm not saying you couldn't get take down an attacker with a knife, I'm just saying if someone is 15 ft away from me on the other side of the living room and they have a hand gun pointed at me, and I have a sword, I think whoever is going to walk away is clear.



my apartment is far from cramped. but i highly doubt too many people can get threw my deadbolted door, and make it far enough into my apartment without me knowing and reacting, to make it into my living room and still think they have 15 feet of distance  someone well trained, sure... but the majority of punks that are gonna break into an apartment, and not bother to check if someones there, barely know how to do more than pull a trigger.


----------



## Harry (Dec 25, 2008)

D-EJ915 said:


> I have a few rackmount computers outside my door in case any noob comes up the stairs, no way you would survive getting hit in the head with one of those



Gun equipped as well?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

thedownside said:


> my apartment is far from cramped. but i highly doubt too many people can get threw my deadbolted door, and make it far enough into my apartment without me knowing and reacting, to make it into my living room and still think they have 15 feet of distance  someone well trained, sure... but the majority of punks that are gonna break into an apartment, and not bother to check if someones there, barely know how to do more than pull a trigger.



Well, that's all well and good if you're a ninja living in an apartment building, but us mortal folks with no martial arts training living in a house with plenty of open area, and more than 1 point of entry are kind of fucked, and I'd rather have a gun  Personally, I'd rather not be anywhere near in range of an intruder to swing at me with anything.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> Regardless of reading that whole story, I still say there is no reason for you to _need_ to own a gun.



You're coming from an indefensible position - what reason is there to not have self-defense? There is simply no comparison between a gun and the 'improvised weapons' you named. Sure, maybe Henry Rollins can get away without one, but defense is not something to be skimpy with.

There are plenty of reasons to 'need' to own a gun - defense being a CLEARLY obvious one - and while you think you look threatening with a lampshade and a screwdriver you may not be so lucky if your attacker has a gun - or, even worse, *two* screwdrivers. Guns stop millions of crimes yearly in the U.S. alone - let's see how well things turn out for people who try to defend themselves with their car keys. Maybe you don't 'need' to own a gun, but on the other hand you don't 'need' a guitar, an apartment, a car, good health...



eleven59 said:


> By your own statements, the guy breaking into your apartment should have been carrying a gun, and then you'd be dead.



Only if he was wielding a broom menacingly.

It's one thing to avoid 'needlessly excessive', but when it's your ass versus someone who threatens you it's better to go there than the other end of 'helplessly inadequate'.

Keep in mind that in America it has been ruled that the police are NOT obligated to protect people in their own homes, and even if they try to help you out they'll take several minutes to get there. If you want security, ensure it yourself.

Jeff


----------



## Cancer (Dec 25, 2008)

I honestly don't have a stance on this one. Before he died, my stepdad was a state cop, so we HAD guns in the house (and this is back when I lived in the inner city). I remember him sitting me down one summer day, putting his unloaded guns in front of me and saying "I want to show you what guns we have in the house and answer questions you may have. So this is your chance, this is one and only time I ever want to see playing with my guns. If I catch you after today, I'm going to beat your ass".

He had a 9mm and a "snub nose" apparently he liked the snub nose better.

Long story short, his guns made me, quite frankly, uncomfortable, and I've carried that till this day. You want to have guns, have at, just not for me.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

Cancer said:


> Long story short, his guns made me, quite frankly, uncomfortable, and I've carried that till this day. You want to have guns, have at, just not for me.



And that's a cool stance to have. You don't want them, but don't want to impede anyone else's right to own one.


----------



## estabon37 (Dec 25, 2008)

Two things unnaturally scare the shit out of me. Guns and horses. I'd be the worst cowboy ever.

Living in rural Australia means not really having to deal with this shit. I can't say there isn't a gun problem in this country, but when it started to get bad our politicians (who are usually so INCREDIBLY bad) shut the whole thing down. The process of getting a gun in this country is such a pain in the arse nobody bothers. And I don't think you're allowed to own a gun that can store more than six rounds.

As far a security goes......I know this will sound lame, but I have contents insurance. My computer files are backed up and kept off-site. I've done what I can to stop anyone breaking into my house, but if someone wants to get in then they probably will. No amount of stuff is worth hurting or killing someone. I don't care how high they are. I don't care if they're pure evil. If I can't take them down with a cricket bat then I shouldn't fight them.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 25, 2008)

What if your assailant isn't a thief?

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 25, 2008)

estabon37 said:


> Living in rural Australia means not really having to deal with this shit. I can't say there isn't a gun problem in this country, but when it started to get bad our politicians (who are usually so INCREDIBLY bad) shut the whole thing down. The process of getting a gun in this country is such a pain in the arse nobody bothers.



Dude, living in _Europe_ means that I don't have to deal with this shit.  Honestly. Americans must be getting broken into at ridiculous rates or something.

And it is _exactly_ the same deal with the politicians and gun ownership over here. It's handy because it's automatically assumed that anyone who has a gun is a bad guy and will get shot to fuck by the Armed Response Unit of the Gardai (unless they're a farmer ).



JBroll said:


> What if your assailant isn't a thief?
> 
> Jeff



What? Like... some sort of... Ass-Bandit or other sexual assailant?


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 25, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> What? Like... some sort of... Ass-Bandit or other sexual assailant?



Yeah, a rapist, or just a fucked up guy or group who wants to jump you and beat you up.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Guns stop millions of crimes yearly in the U.S. alone -



Got proof of this? 



JBroll said:


> Maybe you don't 'need' to own a gun, but on the other hand you don't 'need' a guitar, an apartment, a car, good health...



Jeff you do need a place to live, transportation and your health. Those are part of the hierarchy of needs. Guitars sure aren't and neither are guns. 

The problem I have with a lot of gun ownership arguments is that they are the worst case scenario and everyone thinks they will turn into Dirty Harry and waste the mother fuckers that did it. As someone who has been violently mugged, I got jumped delivering pizzas years ago and had my face and teeth busted up by two guys, I have no desire to own a gun for defense. In the situation that happened to me a gun would have made zero difference as it does in a lot of crime. 

That being said I'm not totally against someone owning a gun for protection but they should have to go through at least as much work to get one as you do to drive a car.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 25, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> Got proof of this?



http://www.justfacts.com/guncontrol.asp#Crime&#37;20and Self Defense

A single search brought this in the first few hits, check out the sixth bullet. The *lowest* figure they found was over 750,000 and most that I've seen come in significantly higher. A previous post of mine has more detail...

http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/1103125-post42.html

Somewhat silly, but I spent as much time as possible with liberal numbers and came out with firearms preventing as many murders as they 'cause'...



ohio_eric said:


> Jeff you do need a place to live, transportation and your health. Those are part of the hierarchy of needs. Guitars sure aren't and neither are guns.



Note that I didn't try to place guns in the hierarchy of needs - my post was regarding ability to defend. All of those can be taken easily from an unarmed non-ninja.



ohio_eric said:


> The problem I have with a lot of gun ownership arguments is that they are the worst case scenario and everyone thinks they will turn into Dirty Harry and waste the mother fuckers that did it. As someone who has been violently mugged, I got jumped delivering pizzas years ago and had my face and teeth busted up by two guys, I have no desire to own a gun for defense. In the situation that happened to me a gun would have made zero difference as it does in a lot of crime.
> 
> That being said I'm not totally against someone owning a gun for protection but they should have to go through at least as much work to get one as you do to drive a car.



The worst-case scenario is *exactly* what they're planned for! 

Nobody expects to become Dirty Harry, but it's simply undeniable that guns can significantly help people defend themselves. Go to a gun meet in Texas and you won't find people who seriously think they'll be the fucking hero at Wal-Mart when someone pulls a knife on the cashier. 

Jeff


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 25, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Gun Control
> 
> A single search brought this in the first few hits, check out the sixth bullet. The *lowest* figure they found was over 750,000 and most that I've seen come in significantly higher. A previous post of mine has more detail...
> 
> ...



I actually think the florida stats in the Right to Carry section right below that are more telling.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 25, 2008)

First, I fixed your link Jeff.  

Second, where's table 1?!?! They say right on the website that table 1 discusses the methodology of the surveys. I want to see it. I tend to be skeptical of surveys. 

Third placing owning a gun anywhere the need for a home or health is nonsense.

Forth, how often does the worst case scenario actually happen? Is having a gun the only answer in the "worst case scenario"? Again much of the pro-gun lobby's argument seems like fear-mongering.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 25, 2008)

First, thanks.

Second, I'll look into it, but Clinton's DoJ report (referenced in my massive post of doom) gives much more detail - and as "the board's resident liberal" (in the same way I'm "the board's resident person with hair") is probably more detailed. (EDIT: 'table 1' appears in the link itself, approximately 3/5 of the way down...)

Third, I didn't place it near that need in the sense that people need firearms as much as food - again, my point was that the needs listed are hard to defend. I think you may have missed what I was actually saying.

Fourth, statistics don't save unarmed murder victims. The worst-case-scenario happens more often than we'd like, period. I don't much care for the NRA myself, but you have some statistics to argue with. Fear-mongering... well, the world can be scary, and that's why we prepare for rainy (or bloody) days - being scary and being right aren't mutually exclusive. For 12,000 people a year the worst-case-scenario happens. Again, check my big post when you have the time.

Jeff


----------



## Randy (Dec 25, 2008)

ohio_eric said:


> I tend to be skeptical of surveys.



This. 

I know gun control (when you're discussing preventing violent crimes vs. causing them) is a reasonably grey area and when I see pages like the one Jeff listed, I can't help but be skeptical. Every 'fact' and every 'statistic' on that page screams "HEY STUPID! LOOK! EVERY NUMBER, WITH NO EXCEPTIONS, POINTS TO ME BEING INARGUABLY RIGHT" when meanwhile, you can find just as many pages with referenced statistics that will convincingly argue the opposite point. 

I'm just saying that the numbers and viewpoints on that page seem to be more than a bit biased, to say the least.


----------



## thedownside (Dec 25, 2008)

if everyone legally owning a gun was properly trained in how to use it in a self-defense situation, then i'd be all for it. but the majority are not. i've read survey's too, the other ones, (and i'm saying they are about as right as the NRA/pro-right to bare arms ones, so not that much ) but just as many, if not more people are killed/injured with there own guns as those that use them successfully to defend themselves.

and what are the gun control laws in regards to storage of weapons and ammo in the places you guys live? i know here (and likely all of canada) you have to store your gun in a locked case/safe and ammo locked up seperately. anything liek that, and you might as well not have it at all 

Swords dont save lives..... Ninja's do


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 25, 2008)

eleven59 said:


> By "lamp" I just meant the nearest heavy object that can be used to bash someone's head in  A knife is needlessly excessive. You can knock someone out and keep them there until the cops come. If you stab them to death, it looks more like a crime of passion.




I gotta disagree dude. If someone tries to break into _my_ house, armed or not, i'll fucking beat them to death.

The way i look at it: Its my house. Not theirs. I didnt invite them in, its illegal, they broke the law first, fuck them.

All in all, good to see your ok Willith, and my respect for not killing the guy... most people i know would have...


----------



## JakeRI (Dec 25, 2008)

gun make people nervous but they are a right. People got to realize that


----------



## JBroll (Dec 25, 2008)

thedownside said:


> ... just as many, if not more people are killed/injured with there own guns as those that use them successfully to defend themselves.



Check my (above referenced) post out and make that claim again.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Dec 26, 2008)

If you hadn't bought a gun, your worldline would've diverged into a different stream and he might not have attempted to rob you at all. 

But seriously, glad to hear you got out OK. 

And I don't think banning guns is the answer either, some countries are just packed with guns, and still have a low crime rate. 
If you banned guns people could still stab each other to death. 
Ban stupid people IMO.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 26, 2008)

silentrage said:


> Ban stupid people IMO.



No fucking shit... let's stop trying to pretend that things other than bad decisions should take responsibility for the consequences of bad decision.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 26, 2008)

^ This.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 26, 2008)

thedownside said:


> and what are the gun control laws in regards to storage of weapons and ammo in the places you guys live? i know here (and likely all of canada) you have to store your gun in a locked case/safe and ammo locked up seperately. anything liek that, and you might as well not have it at all
> 
> Swords dont save lives..... Ninja's do



Yeah, but the only people I know who lock that shit up all the time are people with children. If I live alone, I'm just getting a gun rack and having shells in the nightstand. They can't come and inspect your gun collection randomly until you have 10 firearms in your home.


----------



## JakeRI (Dec 26, 2008)

silentrage said:


> And I don't think banning guns is the answer either, some countries are just packed with guns, and still have a low crime rate.
> If you banned guns people could still stab each other to death.
> Ban stupid people IMO.



its like alcohol. its strickly enforced in the US, so its abused, where in other countries its respected. same thing with guns.


----------



## E Lucevan Le Stelle (Dec 26, 2008)

I'm of mixed opinions over the gun issue: quite frankly, I can't see any real legitimate reasons beyond statist knee-jerking to have the kind of overwhelming restrictions and total bans that over here, for example, forced my grandfather (a World War 2 veteran) to hand his 1939-issue pistol in to the police when they banned handguns, and make it impossible for the UK target shooting team to train in our own country (!?)... but on the other hand, the fact remains that the overall &#37; of cunts among the population is just ridiculous and getting higher every day... and I honestly can't name more than a few people I'd trust to own a firearm.

That said, I'd probably have a gun(s?) if I lived over in the States...


----------



## Drew (Dec 26, 2008)

willith said:


> Rather than re-cap it here, I will link you to my original post, so that you may gain some outside perspective through reading others responses.
> 
> Somebody broke into my apt today- held him at gunpoint (serious) - Bodybuilding.com Forums
> 
> ...



I'm sorry, that doesn't really change my opinion for a number of reasons. 

First, you posted this at a body building forum. Going out on a limb here, but if he's 6-4 and scrawny, and you're 6'2" and post at a budy building forum, you're probably pretty jacked. He has a crowbar, sure... but that doesn't mean you're automatically not going to be able to take him in a fight.

Second, what if he had a gun as well? Worst case scenario, he hears you coming, takes cover, and when he sees you run in with a gun, opens up on you. You die. More likely scenario - you both end up opening fire on each other, and at least one of you will probably get killed, probably both. "Best case scenario?" If you can call it that? You get off a clean shot on him before he can move, kill him, and because you don't have proper authorization you end up fighting a homicide charge in court for a year or two and possibly go to jail. None of those are really appealing scenarios. 

Third, and completely unrelatedly - the cops think your having a gun might have saved your life. For the sake of discussion, let's give it to them, that you'd be dead without that gun, and that owning a gun did you some good here. Meanwhile, in the news today is a story about a California man who, after settling a divorce on the 16th, went to his ex's house with a (legally purchased) handgun, shot the 8-year old in the face who opened the door, and killed at least another 8 people before fleeing and shooting himself in the head. Or, locally, there's the story about the kid who accidently shot himself in the head with a Uzi at a shooting club when he lost control of the recoil. So, clearly, guns can do just as much harm, even in the hands of people who purchased and registered them legally. 

So, it's tough to tell this to a guy who thinks he wouldn't be here today without his gun, but you really CAN'T make decisions about gun ownership at times of heightened emotions simply because there ARE heightened emotions. It makes it very hard to consider any other point of view. 

So, for the sake of discussion, let's consider this - you claim you would most likely not be here today without the gun. Let's say then that your landlord had installed some non-shitty window protection - could you safely say, then, that you wouldn't be here today without an adequately secure house, with proper locks on windows and doors, and entry-resistant windows? The guy had clearly hit a few houses in your complex - he was obviously there because it was easy to get in. Guns occasionally kill innocent people - when's the last time you heard someone get killed by a good door lock?


----------



## silentrage (Dec 26, 2008)

Drew said:


> I'm sorry, that doesn't really change my opinion for a number of reasons.
> 
> First, you posted this at a body building forum. Going out on a limb here, but if he's 6-4 and scrawny, and you're 6'2" and post at a budy building forum, you're probably pretty jacked. He has a crowbar, sure... but that doesn't mean you're automatically not going to be able to take him in a fight.
> 
> ...



You raise some good points, but again I'd like you to consider the people factor in all of this.

Why is it that these double digit death tow fatal shooting sprees (lol that's a mouthful) seems to happen more often in the States than in Canada? We're toting a lot of guns too you know. 

Why is it that just about every story I hear about some stupid fck shooting himself in the face was from Floriduh? 

Britain has pretty strict gun control, but they also have a massive problem with teen gang violence and stabbing / beating deaths. 

I think the factors that give people a reason to use a gun to do harm are too numerous to list, and that's the reason the GUN itself may not be the biggest factor. Social political climate, economy and genetics come to mind, hell even the lunar cycle and fluxes in the magnetic field have been shown to influence people's behaviors, but those are out of our control(for now) so I digress. 

One example I can think of is this, some studies have shown that living in a poor neighbourhood drives people to commit robbery and theft. So improving the economy and living conditions for those people should reduce crime in general and gun crime as well. 
People who're happy = no shooty others in the head. 

What does NOT help IMO, is giving $700 billion of people's money to wealthy bankers, but that's whole other can.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 26, 2008)

silentrage said:


> I think the factors that give people a reason to use a gun to do harm are too numerous to list, and that's the reason the GUN itself may not be the biggest factor. Social political climate, economy and genetics come to mind, hell even the lunar cycle and fluxes in the magnetic field have been shown to influence people's behaviors, but those are out of our control(for now) so I digress.



I think the social thing is the biggest factor, honestly. Like stated, its pretty easy to end up with guns in canada (Not as easy as here), but still, and their crime is way less. Whats different in canda thats causing americans to be crazy as shit with guns? 

As far as the Santa Shooting drew mentioned, even if you take the gun out of the equation, the dude still burned down the house with a home-made flamethrower, so go figure.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 26, 2008)

Drew, holding the gun while you're trying to break into something is a great way of shooting yourself accidentally - once he got in he'd have to draw his weapon. If you catch someone by surprise and get them to stop moving entirely it doesn't matter how many elephant guns they have shoved up their ass. Considering this guy was breaking into Willith's home, I think it's pretty sad that not having the proper paperwork filled out kept him from being able to do more - the bastard should have been shot, period - and when people bring guns to robberies (which isn't all that common since it doesn't help much and it significantly increases penalties) it's not because they want a shootout so much as wanting to have a better bluff than the guy wielding soap on a rope.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 26, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Well, that's all well and good if you're a ninja living in an apartment building, but us mortal folks with no martial arts training living in a house with plenty of open area, and more than 1 point of entry are kind of fucked, and I'd rather have a gun  Personally, I'd rather not be anywhere near in range of an intruder to swing at me with anything.



How about a compromise? How about a bayonet equipped shotgun? 

I own guns, not so much because of the protection factor, (I also have a large variety of knives, both kitchen and katana variety), but more because of what I suspect is going to happen to this country in the near future. I fully expect, and am prepared to participate in, a full-scale revolution.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 26, 2008)

Metal Ken said:


> I think the social thing is the biggest factor, honestly. Like stated, its pretty easy to end up with guns in canada (Not as easy as here), but still, and their crime is way less. Whats different in canda thats causing americans to be crazy as shit with guns?
> 
> As far as the Santa Shooting drew mentioned, even if you take the gun out of the equation, the dude still burned down the house with a home-made flamethrower, so go figure.



Americans are fucking lunatics, Canadians are just a bit weird and too damn cold to get pissed enough at each other.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Dec 26, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Americans are fucking lunatics, Canadians are just a bit weird and too damn cold to get pissed enough at each other.
> 
> Jeff



We just have better weed bro.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 26, 2008)

silentrage said:


> We just have better weed bro.



This man speaks truth.


----------



## ohio_eric (Dec 26, 2008)

*Ahem!! Please leave the weed talk out of this thread and keep this one on topic. Thanks*


----------



## willith (Dec 26, 2008)

Alright, so I've got an update for those not following the bb.com thread. I apologize for the way-too-long-thread here, but I won't be on a computer for a few days.


First off, for anyone thinking they would have "beat the shit" out of an intruder- I can tell you, you're dead wrong (no pun). Yes, I post on a bodybuilding site, yes I work out regularly (and have for years) and yes I was bigger (jacked- not height) and probably could've easily beat the fuck out of him in a fair fight. I'm on my schools hockey team and I've already been kicked out of some games this year for fighting. There are way too many variables in a situation such as this, that would make fighting incredibly stupid. The guy was probably fucked up out of his mind on drugs- and I shouldn't have to tell you, that those people pretty much don't feel pain (I think due to dopamine neurotransmitters in the brain) Plus, the guy had a crowbar- yes that IS a weapon. One shot to the head with that could put you down. (Don't believe me- go watch the russian hammer video) Plus, being in an apartment, it's close-proximity fighting. You cannot swing a bat, lamp, or in my case hockey stick- because walls are too close together. Guns are the ideal weapon of choice in such a situation- so that's why I own them.


I will not be getting my guns back anytime soon. Long story short, what the cops told me was basically wrong and I was blindsided when I went in for my FID card today. 
For ANY handgun you must have an LTC (license to carry). Even if you just want it for home protection, and have no plans of walking into a CVS or taking it to school.....gotta get the LTC- which involves a shitload of work and a sizeable chunk of change.

*Gotta take a safety course at a gun club + pass it (Around $100-150)
*Have to become a member of a gun club (Swear to God- and that's about $125 a mo.)
*Once that's done, go back to the BPD headquarters, get the OK to go take a shooting test in Quincy, MA (where the fawk is that?)
*THEN come back to the BPD headquarters again, fill out my LTC app + $100 app fee.
*THEN wait *8-12 weeks* for it to be OK'd and get my piece of paper.

However- even after all that, I can still be denied. One of the stipulations for being denied is "unlawful possession, ownership, or use of a firearm." While I legally owned my guns, I was (unintentionally) "illegally" possessing them. I asked if I should even bother with going through the whole rigamorale- and they said I could still get it and it was up to the discretion of whomever.

This has been FAR too much trouble for someone breaking into MY apartment. Someone broke into MY apartment, I did NOT kill him, and yet MY guns were taken away, and now *I am left defenseless* should it happen again.....and who knows, maybe this dickbag has acquired guns of his own by now.
At this point I wish I would have shot and killed him- if for nothing other than peace of mind. The anxiety, grief, and stress that comes with the thoughts of him coming back or anyone else coming back is too much. I have to leave my apartment because I do not feel safe, not in the least bit. My scumbag landlord has been LESS than sympathetic to my (and my neighbors) situation(s). If you didn't read the OP, then I'll inform you, their "heightened security" consisted of maintenence screwing back in the same "security bars" that the perpetrator broke through with one simple kick (or punch). 

Say what you want about guns and or killing people- but this situation could have been different if the guy had a gun on him. And nobody knows whether he did or not- it is still a possibility that he was armed with more than a crowbar- but was simply afraid to reach into his pocket because he knew that would leave me with NO option other than to kill him at that very moment.
If you don't want to own a gun, good- you probably shouldn't because you're typically the type of people that don't handle these situations very well. Hopefully you'll never have to go through a similar situation that will make you change your views on home security (that includes breeding a family.)

The law as it stands, *aside from ridiculous states such as Assachusetts*, I think is fine. I went through the proper channels in Iowa to get my guns and I didn't have to jump through loops or walk on a tight-rope. It basically consisted of a background check and fingerprinting...and what more do you really need if you NEVER plan on taking your guns outside of your house? I mean, we let people go skiing down black diamond mountains and go bunjee jumping...and those aren't necessarily safe- so GTFO my guns already.

Gun laws only hurt law-abiding citizens. If a criminal wants a gun, HE WILL GET ONE. Where there's a will, there's a way.





Don't worry about me- I'm driving to Iowa tomorrow to buy another fucking gun so I don't have to be murdered if it happens again. A big  (- the smile) to the commonwealth of MA. Don't worry, I'll register this one...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 26, 2008)

So, if you go buy another gun else where, and register it in MA, you DON'T have to go through all that? That's fucking shit man. How much are those guns worth? I'm assuming around the $500-600 mark since you're willing to go just buy another one rather than go through the hoops right?


----------



## silentrage (Dec 26, 2008)

It does seem a little blunt on the government's part.

Let's try to dissect their logic shall we?

We have gun crimes
Gun violence means ppl have too many guns... durrrrr
Where did people get guns? They must've bought them... durrrrrrr
If we make it really fucking hard to buy guns, there'd be less guns... durrr
Less guns means less gun crimes!!!.... durrrrr

/facepalm


----------



## killiansguitar (Dec 26, 2008)

All i got to say is, if someone is gonna break in to MY house, and i can get to my handgun quick enough, somebody is getting a bullet/s to the midsection. Theres no thinking about this or that, theres only pulling of the trigger. Sorry.


I dont understand people that are anti-gun...they just dont get it, and will never get it until they are actually in a position where a firearm could save their life.


----------



## willith (Dec 26, 2008)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> So, if you go buy another gun else where, and register it in MA, you DON'T have to go through all that? That's fucking shit man. How much are those guns worth? I'm assuming around the $500-600 mark since you're willing to go just buy another one rather than go through the hoops right?




The .45 was $535 and the 12g was around $300.


I'll still have to go through the hoops to get it registered, but at least I'll have one while I'm doing it- instead of being rendered useless.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 27, 2008)

Buy a cheap ass one illegally while you jump through the hoops to get your others back legally


----------



## silentrage (Dec 27, 2008)

killiansguitar said:


> All i got to say is, if someone is gonna break in to MY house, and i can get to my handgun quick enough, somebody is getting a bullet/s to the midsection. Theres no thinking about this or that, theres only pulling of the trigger. Sorry.
> 
> 
> I dont understand people that are anti-gun...they just dont get it, and will never get it until they are actually in a position where a firearm could save their life.



I used to be so opposed to gun ownership, but that's when I read too many news stories about Florida.


----------



## Tomii Sonic (Dec 27, 2008)

Guns suck...no doubt, and they are a cowards way out..sure- I agree..but here is the thing...
when you live in a place, where those cowards use those guns to impose their will-
- politics are out the window..there is no political option when that gun is in your' face. These people WILL use those guns- and these aren't the guns that are registered-

In the last 5 years, I have lost 3 friends (that I know of)- shot to death all of them-
I moved to Orlando in 96' (Home of Disney World) ...in the first 6 months I was jumped and stabbed twice with a steak knife, and then stabbed with a flathead screwdriver in an attempt to steal my car.....These people(of ANY race you can name) will do and use anything for material gain...or worse, to gain a reputation so that people will fear them, and think that shit is funny!

What is my point?
I don't know exactly BUT- I CAN TELL YOU THIS, -when somebody see's you with no more regard than an insect cornered by a sadistic child and they put that gun in your face...all the political points of view that people have the luxury of indulging in...aren't worth shit
-I'll never forget seeing my friend Reid laying in the grass with ants crawling on him- dead from gunshot wounds- would he have been dead if he had a gun?...I don't know 
-but he was dead with out one


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 27, 2008)

killiansguitar said:


> I dont understand people that are anti-gun...they just dont get it, and will never get it until they are actually in a position where a firearm could save their life.



What's weirder, I've actually heard of some people, who are ardently anti-gun, get robbed at gun point, and then get louder in their anti-gun rhetoric.


----------



## silentrage (Dec 27, 2008)

The Atomic Ass said:


> What's weirder, I've actually heard of some people, who are ardently anti-gun, get robbed at gun point, and then get louder in their anti-gun rhetoric.



That's because having a gun doesn't save you from being robbed.
Unless you go to a shooting range all the time, some street thug's gonna have more experience and less hesitation when using a gun than you do. 



EDIT: l33t C0un73r str1k3 sk1llzz0`rss~~11```eleven don't count.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 27, 2008)

They may not save someone who is inexperienced and useless, but down here in the States they save quite a few people. Part of the point, which you may have missed, is that the robbers *ignored* gun laws already in place and probably wouldn't pay much attention (or do anything other than celebrate) if stricter laws were put into place.

Jeff


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 27, 2008)

Also, I don't think anyone is saying that if everyone has guns, all crime will disappear. If you have it you can use it, if you're already being held at gun point, then you obviously aren't going to reach for it. If you have it and can use it, cool, if not, then it doesn't hurt having it on you, that is of course if you're talking about concealed carry and not home defense.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 27, 2008)

Guys, reading this thread makes America seem like a terrifying place. Are people really terrified of stuff like this happening all the time?

I mean, if you don't have guns you'd get an increased number of stabbings like what is happening in England among teenage gang members. But to be honest, I'd prefer knives on the street rather than guns because let's face it, if you're in a situation where someone has the jump on you unless you're a frickin' ninja with cat like reflexes, having a gun on your person is going to do fuck all other than increasing your likelihood of getting shot inna face.

Nobody even answered my post before:



ZeroSignal said:


> Dude, living in _Europe_ means that I don't have to deal with this shit.  Honestly. Americans must be getting broken into at ridiculous rates or something.
> 
> And it is _exactly_ the same deal with the politicians and gun ownership over here. It's handy because it's automatically assumed that anyone who has a gun is a bad guy and will get shot to fuck by the Armed Response Unit of the Gardai (unless they're a farmer ).


----------



## JBroll (Dec 27, 2008)

Terrified? No... but people plan. Having an overcoat doesn't mean I'm terrified of another ice age. Having nonperishables and emergency supplies to be on the safe side doesn't mean that I'm paranoid about World War 3. Considering the fact that U.S. policemen aren't required to protect people in their own homes and have a response time too long to be a viable backup plan, preparedness isn't a bad idea.

As for your post before... seeing as how there are no questions I find it hard to 'answer'... but I recall a few stories of crime going up after the UK's handgun ban (BBC News | UK | Handgun crime 'up' despite ban) - I don't remember which half of Ireland you're in, but you're close enough for me to consider you just another tea-drinking funny-talking redcoat...

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Terrified? No... but people plan. Having an overcoat doesn't mean I'm terrified of another ice age. Having nonperishables and emergency supplies to be on the safe side doesn't mean that I'm paranoid about World War 3. Considering the fact that U.S. policemen aren't required to protect people in their own homes and have a response time too long to be a viable backup plan, preparedness isn't a bad idea.
> 
> As for your post before... seeing as how there are no questions I find it hard to 'answer'... but I recall a few stories of crime going up after the UK's handgun ban (BBC News | UK | Handgun crime 'up' despite ban) - I don't remember which half of Ireland you're in, but you're close enough for me to consider you just another tea-drinking funny-talking redcoat...
> 
> Jeff



That's fair enough, I'm in the south. But I still think England is a good analogue to use because our police service is atrocious.

Well, the point I was trying to make in my other post was that if people who have the guns are treated as dangerous criminals like they are here. As in, anyone using a gun in crime and is reported can find themselves on the business end of the Armed Response Unit.

Backup plans are all well and good but if the essentials are not there then what is the point? As Drew rightly pointed out, if Willith's apartment had sufficient security precautions then he wouldn't have been put in that situation in the first place.

America had 5.2 times the population of Great Britian in 2005 yet in America in 2005 there was 14,000 murders involving guns and for the financial year of 2004/2005 there were only about 75 murders involving guns in Britain. That's _186.6_ times the British equivalent.

This makes interesting reading:
BBC NEWS | UK | What can be done about gun crime?
BBC ON THIS DAY | 13 | 1996: Massacre in Dunblane school gym


----------



## JBroll (Dec 27, 2008)

How many murders were there *total* on your side of the pond? The 2005 firearm murder rates were closer to 10,000 according to the FBI, by the way - again, see the post from a past thread that I referenced above. We have fucked up people, period, and pretending that other things are the issue won't get us anywhere.

As far as Drew's point on security... nothing is 100&#37; secure, and I doubt Willith had any say whatsoever in his flat's security measures. I know I can't modify anything significant, or talk the landlord into letting me do so, and even if I could there's always someone who can get through.

EDIT: Regarding school shootings... schools are generally no-carry. If I were to carry a firearm on my school's campus, even with all licenses and training completed, I would be thrown off and probably banned. You think safety, criminals think rampage. University of Texas, Columbine, Virginia Tech, and most likely the place you named banned guns from their campuses. It's hard to control guns more than banning them outright. In Texas many were killed (although people who were technically 'off campus' were firing back at the sniper), and we all know how the others turned out. Whoops.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> How many murders were there *total* on your side of the pond? The 2005 firearm murder rates were closer to 10,000 according to the FBI, by the way - again, see the post from a past thread that I referenced above. We have fucked up people, period, and pretending that other things are the issue won't get us anywhere.
> 
> As far as Drew's point on security... nothing is 100% secure, and I doubt Willith had any say whatsoever in his flat's security measures. I know I can't modify anything significant, or talk the landlord into letting me do so, and even if I could there's always someone who can get through.
> 
> ...



Well, Wikipedia (yeah, I know) lists the murder rate per 100,000 in England & Wales as 1.37 for 2006 and the United States at 5.7. Canada's murder rate is only 1.75 for the same year.

I know that it's the landlord's responsibility to secure the apartment and I didn't mean to imply that it was Willith's, I just meant that in an ordinary home if you already have the basics then you're a hell of a lot safer.

The guy had _SIX_ guns. Six legally owned guns, permits and everything and he shot up a school of 5 and 6 year olds.

Most of the people who go on these shooting rampages are people who simply go off the deep end because they are mentally unstable. They are not that likely to be criminals. I don't think there have ever been a university/college shooting in Ireland or the UK since the introduction of a gun ban.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 27, 2008)

Erm, when you shoot people (or, in some jurisdictions, plan to shoot people) you're a criminal.

Legally owned guns being used in murders are actually not that common. Again, though, the blame lies not with the guns but with the nutjobs. America's city per-capita murder rates have been higher than Britain's for practically fucking forever - even before either country had 'gun control' laws we were outmurdering you several to one.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Dec 27, 2008)

It's the Russians shooting mind-control rays trying to destablize your society.


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 27, 2008)

willith said:


> The .45 was $535 and the 12g was around $300.
> 
> 
> I'll still have to go through the hoops to get it registered, but at least I'll have one while I'm doing it- instead of being rendered useless.




For 12g, if you're just gonna protect the abode, try one of those Mossberg Maverick m-88 Security Models. They're around 200$ brand new, work reliably and are even cheaper at pawn shops.


----------



## killiansguitar (Dec 27, 2008)

Tomii Sonic said:


> politics are out the window..there is no political option when that gun is in your' face....when somebody see's you with no more regard than an insect cornered by a sadistic child and they put that gun in your face...all the political points of view that people have the luxury of indulging in...aren't worth shit



Well said.



silentrage said:


> Unless you go to a shooting range all the time, some street thug's gonna have more experience and less hesitation when using a gun than you do.



I dont know about you, but when MY adrenaline is running and i'm literally in fear of my life being ended....right there...right then....its pretty difficult to even think about the consequences and repercussions of shooting someone in defense of your life. Besides, this is a gun, not a game, you point, you pull the trigger, and thats it. Shooting experience doesnt really matter in most close combat situations with both parties weilding firearms.



JBroll said:


> Considering the fact that U.S. policemen aren't required to protect people in their own homes and have a response time too long to be a viable backup plan, preparedness isn't a bad idea.



Excellent point. Police response time in my area is one of the MAIN reasons i own a handgun and a shotgun for home protection. I remember a neighbor of mine calling the police because of her crazy ex husband trying to break down her door, it took the police 45 minutes to get there. 45 minutes!!! I dont know about you, but that doesnt make me feel very secure or safe at all...on the other hand, my SigSauer and my Remington do!!



JBroll said:


> I don't remember which half of Ireland you're in, but you're close enough for me to consider you just another tea-drinking funny-talking redcoat


----------



## silentrage (Dec 27, 2008)

killiansguitar said:


> I dont know about you, but when MY adrenaline is running and i'm literally in fear of my life being ended....right there...right then....its pretty difficult to even think about the consequences and repercussions of shooting someone in defense of your life. Besides, this is a gun, not a game, you point, you pull the trigger, and thats it. Shooting experience doesnt really matter in most close combat situations with both parties weilding firearms.


That's why when the army sends soldiers to iraq for close combat, they don't train them at all.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 27, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Erm, when you shoot people (or, in some jurisdictions, plan to shoot people) you're a criminal.
> 
> Legally owned guns being used in murders are actually not that common. Again, though, the blame lies not with the guns but with the nutjobs. America's city per-capita murder rates have been higher than Britain's for practically fucking forever - even before either country had 'gun control' laws we were outmurdering you several to one.
> 
> Jeff



You misunderstood/read me. I said/meant that if you have a gun here and you're not a farmer or a game hunter owning a double-barrel you're going to get nicked. Hard.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 27, 2008)

silentrage said:


> That's because having a gun doesn't save you from being robbed.
> Unless you go to a shooting range all the time, some street thug's gonna have more experience and less hesitation when using a gun than you do.
> 
> 
> ...



It's true that someone who is scared shitless isn't going to be helped by a gun... I myself on the other hand... 

You don't have to go shooting all the time, 3 hours of range time a year, (30 min every 2 months), is enough to keep ones skills in good shape. Any more than that is just having fun shooting.


----------



## Tiger (Dec 28, 2008)

Its great that the Brits have a low gun population and have subsequently fewer gun related deaths. But we have a much higher gun population as of 2008. Even if we stopped making and selling guns in America this problem would never ever go away. The 'need' for gun access is very real and isnt a matter of stupidity or backwards thinking.

Ive trained shotokan karate for 15 years. But if I want self defense in america, I'll carry a gun.


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 28, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Most of the people who go on these shooting rampages are people who simply go off the deep end because they are mentally unstable. They are not that likely to be criminals.



See i tend to agree with this, and i always figured it was a bigger portion of US shootings, but i really dont think it is (and im sure there will be a zillion posts to show me that it really isnt a big portion..).

I think the fact that we havent actually experienced a crime rate like that really does mean we have pretty warped senses of gun control etc.. 

Its one of those things, there are going to be good things and bad things with any bans/legalising the government could do with guns, especially in a country that already _has_ so many illegal firearms in circulation, that it really does seem like a matter of balancing out the good with the bad.

Guns 'legal' (current level of control): Yes, some people might flip out and kill people. They might to it with knives too though, and there are enough rules (so i have discovered) that most mentally unstable people will not be able to own one. People feel secure and safer, whether they are or not differs with situation. They _do_ save people, and hopefully the sight of a .45 being drawn on just a mugger will be enough to deter them, if not, shoot.

My biggest issue is that it seems a little redundant _having_ a gun if you're going to get jumped by surprise by someone with a bigger (illegal) gun, and you cant even get to yours...

Guns illegal/banned: There are too many illegal firearms currently in circulation in a country as big as the US. I honestly think it would be too hard to do anyway. Its all well and good to track down the registered gun owners (the ones _not_ going on rampages...) and take their defences, but that just leaves hundreds of petty thugs buying guns from other thugs on the street who are coked up and itching to blow someones fucking head off... There is (from what i can tell) the possibility that there would be less death attributed to accidental shootings, and also the aforementioned crazy people shootings, but i mean i honestly think that may be it...

Yes, the people whose kids shot themselves will probably be kicking themselves about how guns killed their kids, and may even be anti-gun now... BUT, if the old grandma had the SAFETY on her handgun in her purse, her grandkid would NOT have shot herself... if the parents of that kid with the Uzi had, i dunno, NOT let their 8 year old (is that right?) fire a fully automatic weapon, _he'd still be alive_.

Its purely a case of stupidity 9 out of 10 cases of accidental shootings, and they have no one to blame but themselves.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 28, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> Guns illegal/banned: There are too many illegal firearms currently in circulation in a country as big as the US. I honestly think it would be too hard to do anyway. Its all well and good to track down the registered gun owners (the ones _not_ going on rampages...) and take their defences, but that just leaves hundreds of petty thugs buying guns from other thugs on the street who are coked up and itching to blow someones fucking head off... There is (from what i can tell) the possibility that there would be less death attributed to accidental shootings, and also the aforementioned crazy people shootings, but i mean i honestly think that may be it...
> 
> Yes, the people whose kids shot themselves will probably be kicking themselves about how guns killed their kids, and may even be anti-gun now... BUT, if the old grandma had the SAFETY on her handgun in her purse, her grandkid would NOT have shot herself... if the parents of that kid with the Uzi had, i dunno, NOT let their 8 year old (is that right?) fire a fully automatic weapon, _he'd still be alive_.
> 
> Its purely a case of stupidity 9 out of 10 cases of accidental shootings, and they have no one to blame but themselves.



Wow, you understand our situation better than half the people in this country.


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 28, 2008)

You guys have a truly fucked up situation, seriously... 

It kind of gets me that the constitution was never updated... i mean, so you have 'the right to bear arms'... thats great, and was written when 'arms' were single shot muskets that took minutes to reload, not .50 caliber, 10-15 shot cannons, capable of blowing off arms/heads/other appendages.

I mean, im ok with gun ownership, it just makes me laugh in that strange, possibly innapropriate way...


----------



## JBroll (Dec 28, 2008)

Keep in mind that the government was never meant to be as far-reaching with its military usage, many founding fathers thought that guns were necessary to keep the government in line (and the way things are I'd think they were right), and sometimes it is simply necessary to kill things.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 28, 2008)

^  True. Especially given the revolutionary nature of the times..


----------



## silentrage (Dec 28, 2008)

I wish you guys would stop talking about it and just revolt already.
Well... maybe give the 1/4 black president a chance then revolt.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 28, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> ^  True. Especially given the revolutionary nature of the times..



It wasn't limited to the times. They saw gun control as being a key step towards an oppressive government that didn't fear its citizens (as in the phrase "one with a gun is a citizen, one without a gun is a subject"), in addition to taking away people's defense against each other, natives, large bears, or whatever else would be threatening them.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 28, 2008)

Aye, but in a modern and rational society the gun has been replaced by the vote.


----------



## silentrage (Dec 28, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Aye, but in a modern and rational society the gun has been replaced by the vote.



Which has in turn been replaced by diebold?


----------



## Metal Ken (Dec 28, 2008)

silentrage said:


> Which has in turn been replaced by diebold?


Unfortunately :/ 



ZeroSignal said:


> Aye, but in a modern and rational society the gun has been replaced by the vote.


Ever listen to Corrosion of Conformity?





No, seriously, though-- Voting works, yeah, but in a society where the government changes the constitution at will, and the president has dinner with the guy who designs the voting machines, kinda makes you think something isnt working right. Also, If voting works so well, look at politics in africa.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 28, 2008)

Well... I don't know about you guys but our constitution was drawn up so as to protect the people from the government they elect. The government cannot change constitution without public referendum and cannot put legislation through without it being inspected by both houses of parliament (the Dail and the Seanad) and then the President, who can pass it on to the Supreme Court if they deem it to be unconstitutional.

Voting works fine. Corruption, intimidation and violence do not.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 28, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Aye, but in a modern and rational society the gun has been replaced by the vote.



Bullshit. This is the kind of thing I'd expect to hear out of a brainwashed "honors student" fresh out of high school, not someone intelligent.

The U.S. government has no interest at all in its public image. Governments and governors inherently put a great deal of effort into ensuring their longevity, and to think that an administration can't subvert votes is incredibly naive and completely unjustified by reality. 

The whole system is a joke until "none of the above" is an option. They're giving the illusion of choice, not choice. They can tamper with votes without anyone knowing about it. Can they tamper with the bullets flying at them? Not as well as they'd like - which is why we have gun control.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Dec 28, 2008)

ZeroSignal said:


> Well... I don't know about you guys but our constitution was drawn up so as to protect the people from the government they elect. The government cannot change constitution without public referendum and cannot put legislation through without it being inspected by both houses of parliament (the Dail and the Seanad) and then the President, who can pass it on to the Supreme Court if they deem it to be unconstitutional.
> 
> Voting works fine. Corruption, intimidation and violence do not.



Our constitution was drawn up the same way, but the government didn't follow it - and not enough people opened fire in 1791, the 1860s, the 1930s... if we had a fresh start today and everyone knew practically instantly what was going on the issue would be entirely different, but America hasn't understood the Constitution since it was written.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 28, 2008)

JBroll said:


> America hasn't understood the Constitution since it was written.



Amen to that. I was never quite sure why, but it just seems like America in general just doesnt quite 'get' the constitution, and the only people who really 'use' it, are the ones who are guilty of something or other... Maybe im wrong, but it sure as hell looks like that from where im standing.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Bullshit. This is the kind of thing I'd expect to hear out of a brainwashed "honors student" fresh out of high school, not someone intelligent.
> 
> The U.S. government has no interest at all in its public image. Governments and governors inherently put a great deal of effort into ensuring their longevity, and to think that an administration can't subvert votes is incredibly naive and completely unjustified by reality.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure whether to take that as a compliment or not, Jeffycakes...

Democracy works. It just has to be in the correct system. I'm not sure what system of voting you guys use but we use proportional representation: single transferable vote. This seems to be, by far, the most democratic system.

The Dail (lower house of parliament and where most of the government ministers are from) can be dissolved by the President if he or she feels that they are not working in the people's best interests, although, I don't think this has ever happened.

We also hold referendums on basically every bit of serious European legislation that our government has to decide upon. Look up the Lisbon Treaty. Basically, we were asked to vote on a treaty that is "self amending" and would most likely lead to a United States of Europe. We _voted _against it. The governments of every other country in Europe said yes because non of their constitutions allowed the people to take referendums but the treaty was still rejected thanks to us. _Now_ we're being told by Europe to vote on it again, which is a gross failure of democracy. 

Now, when was the last time someone used guns to deal with your government? Kennedy? Reagan? Congratulations you have fucking retards with guns murdering/shooting government officials they don't agree with or plain dislike.

And Jeff, if the choices are so bad then you SHOULD just spoil your vote. We still use paper ballots here (because the voting machines we bought can be easily hacked or something). We actually have the option of writing "none of the above" which will be recorded.

No system is perfect but you need to have the correct environment for it to function effectively.


----------



## JBroll (Dec 29, 2008)

I was saying that's an uncharacteristically unintelligent remark coming out of you considering past discussions, take that as you will.

The remark about guns comes from the fact that people will be taken more seriously by any government official who feels threatened - even without a single bullet being fired. The American Civil War is always misrepresented as being a slavery issue, with the mean, nasty South only fighting for their 'property' and Saint Jesus Sir Pope Abraham Lincoln doing what he thought was right - it was a war over increasing federal government powers (and Lincoln was an utter bastard anyway, freeing slaves not because he felt they should be freed but because they'd help the Union) and the wrong side won. Take it from history - it's easier to take a great deal of control away from people *after* their firearms are gone. If the South had supplies the world would be a far different place; if they had no guns from the beginning the current state would have been reached decades ago.

Our vice president isn't part of the executive branch, our 'interstate commerce' clause is *never* brought out for interstate commerce cases, our 'elastic clause' has been stretched so wide our limiting Constitution has literally been turned inside out throught its own asshole... we have a system where people have shit shoved down their throats from birth until they really believe that people shouldn't complain if they don't vote. Take the average American off the street - even after W (who wasn't 'democratically' elected, as we're a fuck-you republic) he'll still think his vote counts (even though the electoral college could just toss names down the stairs and vote for the ones that go down the farthest and nobody would scratch their ass differently) - and keep in mind that our government is run by people like *him*. In addition to having a two-headed-one-party system, third parties are actively attacked because they 'steal votes from the real parties' and somehow that's a *bad* thing. The American people are simply getting completely fucked over by a government that can no longer be held accountable for anything. Granted, most of us have been begging for that for decades, but considering how easy it was to take speech, association, the press, and fucking goddamn shampoo bottles away after 9/11 it would be downright fucking terrifying to see what D.C. would come up with if guns were taken away. If you're going to pick one right out of our Bill of Rights, pick guns - you can't talk your way into making the government let you threaten it, but that 2nd amendment will be a hell of a negotiating tool in all but the most incompetent hands.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Dec 29, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I was saying that's an uncharacteristically unintelligent remark coming out of you considering past discussions, take that as you will.
> 
> The remark about guns comes from the fact that people will be taken more seriously by any government official who feels threatened - even without a single bullet being fired. The American Civil War is always misrepresented as being a slavery issue, with the mean, nasty South only fighting for their 'property' and Saint Jesus Sir Pope Abraham Lincoln doing what he thought was right - it was a war over increasing federal government powers (and Lincoln was an utter bastard anyway, freeing slaves not because he felt they should be freed but because they'd help the Union) and the wrong side won. Take it from history - it's easier to take a great deal of control away from people *after* their firearms are gone. If the South had supplies the world would be a far different place; if they had no guns from the beginning the current state would have been reached decades ago.
> 
> ...



Why thank you. Sorry for taking it the wrong way the first time I read it. 

That was a great post actually. Especially the third paragraph. I'd agree with you on the "guns as a safety net" concept in your system at least. It did actually put things in perspective. Unfortunately the Nice and Lisbon Treaties are showing how we are going that way democratically too.

I still don't like guns in society though.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Dec 30, 2008)

I have an outlook that will likely be unpopular. 

I was the victim of a robbery back in january and learned the hard way about renter's insurance. Of the things stolen, one of which was my gun.

The way I look at it is this: Money is essentially the physical embodiment of time. You spend your time to make money to provide for yourself, your loved ones, etc. The things that this man (assuming) took from me were what I had purchased with the fruit of my labor (spending 8 hours+ a day in an office). This man essentially stole part of my life and something irreplaceable (my grandfathers heirloom pistol, old S&W .38 special airlite) This man obviously thought his time was more valuable than my own. I would have shot him dead. if the first shot hadn't satisfactorily killed him, the second shot would have. That's not because I'm a malicious person, but all to often have I heard stories of trial lawyers suing would be robbery victims. Plus, I live in GA, all of my police friends unanimously agree, if you shoot anyone for any reason, make sure they're found inside your house and that they are dead. 

Sure I tried to sympathize with the criminal for a second, maybe he had a family to feed and was on hard times. Then I noticed that one of my Xbox controllers was missing, as was the case to Halo 3 (the game disc was in my 360). Then I immediately arrived at a probable profile for the person who stole from me.

It is the closest feeling to rape I believe a man will ever experience (short of spending time in jail and experiencing, well, rape). The powerlessness you feel is maddening. 

Good luck on getting your guns back, and know that my heart goes out to you. I'm about to start the process of getting a concealed carry permit myself for essentially the same reason, and my girlfriend is too.


----------



## CatPancakes (Dec 30, 2008)

JBroll said:


> I was saying that's an uncharacteristically unintelligent remark coming out of you considering past discussions, take that as you will.
> 
> The remark about guns comes from the fact that people will be taken more seriously by any government official who feels threatened - even without a single bullet being fired. The American Civil War is always misrepresented as being a slavery issue, with the mean, nasty South only fighting for their 'property' and Saint Jesus Sir Pope Abraham Lincoln doing what he thought was right - it was a war over increasing federal government powers (and Lincoln was an utter bastard anyway, freeing slaves not because he felt they should be freed but because they'd help the Union) and the wrong side won. Take it from history - it's easier to take a great deal of control away from people *after* their firearms are gone. If the South had supplies the world would be a far different place; if they had no guns from the beginning the current state would have been reached decades ago.
> 
> ...



finally, someone who understands the civil war, you have no idea how many times ive been accused of being racist for saying the south should have won the civil way and that america died when the south lost


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Dec 30, 2008)

Nope. Doesn't change my stance on guns in any way.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Dec 30, 2008)

Demoniac said:


> See i tend to agree with this, and i always figured it was a bigger portion of US shootings, but i really dont think it is (and im sure there will be a zillion posts to show me that it really isnt a big portion..).
> 
> I think the fact that we havent actually experienced a crime rate like that really does mean we have pretty warped senses of gun control etc..
> 
> ...


+1

The US couldn't ban guns, it wouldn't work. On the other hand, why does anyone need a fully automatic weapon like an uzi for home defense?


----------



## JBroll (Dec 30, 2008)

Pray you don't find out.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Dec 31, 2008)

^ And if you do, be sure to wear body armour...


----------



## JBroll (Dec 31, 2008)

The fundamental difference between that mindset and the mindset America was founded on is this: some ask if something should be allowed, but the question should be whether or not the government should have the right to restrict it in the first place. Freedoms aren't handed down by the government - asking why something should be allowed is, in that sense, completely wrong.

Jeff


----------



## sami (Dec 31, 2008)

I wonder if I could legally own one of those tasers that shoot wires at the victim. That way if someone broke into my place, I have a "safer" way to subdue the douche until the police arrive.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Dec 31, 2008)

sami said:


> I wonder if I could legally own one of those tasers that shoot wires at the victim. That way if someone broke into my place, I have a "safer" way to subdue the douche until the police arrive.



Yes. Google my friend.

If Johnny Knoxville can get one, any idiot can probably get one.


----------



## 7 Dying Trees (Dec 31, 2008)

JBroll said:


> Pray you don't find out.
> 
> Jeff


That would indicate a reliance on a deity, so it's then fairly unforunate for me seeing as I haven't got one isn't it?


----------



## willith (Dec 31, 2008)

sami said:


> I wonder if I could legally own one of those tasers that shoot wires at the victim. That way if someone broke into my place, I have a "safer" way to subdue the douche until the police arrive.



In TX, I'm sure you'd have no problem getting one as long as you're over 18. However, in MA you have to get a similar LTC For a stun/taser gun as well as for MACE. Yes, that's right, even to carry mace. However, I don't think there are even any places in MA that sell mace.

In other news, I bought my Springfield XD .45 yesterday. Since I already had my permit to purchase, there was no waiting period.
Iowa gun laws FTW.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Dec 31, 2008)

So have you started the process to get your others back?


----------



## m3ta1head (Dec 31, 2008)

Had I been in this situation, I would have flipped on your ENGL and djent'd him to death 

Seriously though-I respect your patience and judgment in a situation as extreme as the one you were in. I don't know if I would have been able to handle myself the same way.

Which guitar did the douchebag knock over? You should have fucking killed him just for that


----------



## daemon barbeque (Dec 31, 2008)

It's all about money.
Where those "illegal" weapons came from? Who produce them ,who sells them?
This is a big undustry and noone wants to kill the mighty $ machine!
First sell guns to the criminals ,then sell guns to the others to protect them ,then sell bigger guns to the criminals to sell more guns to the others...

It really works like religion ,first scare them to death with the hell ,than let them bring hell on earth...

"it is too late to ban guns" is the "last scout" in every gun discussion. That oitself shows how people actually are not shure if we need guns. the only argument is "because others have ,and they are the bad guys"...
So we come to the beginning again...
If those bad guys have a colt in the hand ,just get the CEO of colt ,bust his nutts ,take away his business for a month and look if that happens again!
But no ,gun culture and industry have to live!


----------



## JBroll (Dec 31, 2008)

That's complete and utter bullshit.

"Illegal" weapons are stolen, or occasionally bought legitimately through someone who claims to have had it stolen. It's not like someone can slip a few off the assembly line and give them to serial killers...

It comes down to a lot more than money. It comes down to a policy that will simply never work and that is in the eyes of millions of humans a violation of basic rights.

The other arguments go beyond "other people have them"... they're useful for other things and just fun to use. They also touch on 'bans will simply not work', 'it's downright fucking stupid to blame inanimate objects for people's problems', and similar things. I don't know what kind of Orwellian nightmare you'd like America to become, but rights aren't supposed to be limited gifts granted by the government - it is (or should be, at least) the government's duty to protect freedoms, and all liberties should be assumed held by the people until further notice. Then again, with people like you blathering away about how guns are to blame for murders there's a strong case for restricting freedom of speech...

Your post borders on incompetent conspiracy theory and police state at the same time - a rare achievement, but not one to wear on your shoulder.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 1, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> It's all about money.
> Where those "illegal" weapons came from? Who produce them ,who sells them?
> This is a big undustry and noone wants to kill the mighty $ machine!
> First sell guns to the criminals ,then sell guns to the others to protect them ,then sell bigger guns to the criminals to sell more guns to the others...
> ...




I disagree dude. A lot of guns on the black market/illegal market (the one that criminals will _always_ have access to...) come from dealers. Illegal dealers, arms dealers, small time crooks, whoever. Point is, they _will_ always have a way to get them regardless of legislation or peer pressure...

The main reason people own guns is so they feel safer, and honestly, given the crime rates in America, i can't fault them for that. 

As for your other point, illegal guns, they come from ex-war-torn countries, places with _stockpiles_ of the things that no-one is _really_ looking out for, from corrupt officials, from people who buy them and have no scruples selling to unlicensed buyers. The fault of gun crime lies purely with people, and their inability to overcome natural psychological flaws (greed and rage probably are the two most important and common to this discussion).

Hell, look at even two hundred years ago: It was commonplace for people to be engaged in duels to the death, with pistols, with swords, with knives. Violence has been a mainstay in human society for thousands and thousands of years, there has _never_ been any form of ban on weapons though, until the last hundred years, and the introduction of guns. Why? Not because it is in itself inherently 'evil' per se, but because of the ease of use. This is why there is legislation, this is why there is a fair bit of thought that needs to go into it; because they really _dont_ require a lot of skill to use. Swords you had to learn to use, you _had_ to have some experience, because there were other, more advanced swordsmen around you everywhere. Very few people were stabbed in the back, because it was bad sport, and an underhanded, dishonourable tactic. Hell, it would be more appropriate to blame todays crime rates on a lack of morals and honour! Even in the mid to late 1800's there were still _honourable_ duels with pistols to settle grievances.

Its not the fault of guns. And its not some big fucking conspiracy to spread guns. People with no scruples sell to others with even fewer morals, that is all. And like i said, theres not nearly as much skill involved; just point. Shoot. Kill.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 1, 2009)

Ehem ,first ,You are far away from calling my words upper bullshit. To call my words bullshit ,you have to live some other place than America ,and understand the life we live ,wthout the whole gun thing! Yes we live without guns ,and yes we feel and are safe. Even the police doesn't have to carry guns all the time. And you know what? We have more rights against the police too. You can't argue with american policemen ,but I can argue with german police...And I have not the fear that he is going to point his gun to my head and scream at my face to crouch or whatever. Your police have to "stay tight" all the time ,because all of you carry something ,legal or not. No policemen can ask someone who is allready pointing a gun to them if it's legal or not.

The guns "are" moving within the knowledge of goverments and army. American army is "losing" many weapons around the world. The last " robbery" was about 4800 glock pistols in Iraq...An Army whou couldn't protect their armory...Well you decide if it's fishy or not.

I tell you what! If your goverment wants to take over ,you have no chance ,even with a uzi or M-16...You are not as skilled ,indoctrined and trained like a pro soldier ,you don't own tanks and whatnot.You can't fly with A-10s and Apaches and kill people from distance. If the Goverment wants to take over ,you're fucked! So please quit this "utter buillshit" as you call so nicely.
You live a country where you can buy guns ,but have to pay to register them. But you can buy them ,but cannot carry them. (As Willith prooves). So you are a "illegal" gun abusing citizen after living the Walmart. And you tell me about freedom ? freedom to be ignorant and kill your own kid? Freedom to shoot anyone you want?

There is a clear fact...We don't have your crime rates ,since we don't have that much guns period! If you really can proove the opposite , I will be quite till the end of my life. But if you can't ,stop argueing about how good it is ,since it's clearly not!


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

Look at the numbers posted above - citizens carrying firearms bring lower crime rates. An outright ban would not only violate many of the principles our country was founded on (which you, as someone who 'lives some other place than America', probably aren't familiar enough with), it wouldn't work - as we see when places like D.C. or even schools try to ban them.

Our police being uptight doesn't have to do with guns so much as a lack of accountability, and I have personally argued with American policemen without being shot. If you pull a gun without provocation on a police officer - or anyone armed, for that matter - you will and should be shot.

It's far easier to make the case for gun traffic as a result of incompetence (which we show plenty of) than an international conspiracy to sell guns to hicks.

As for the government not being able to deal with a population that doesn't want their control but lacks things like A-10s and Apaches... Iraq. Sorry, looks like you're fucking deflated there.

Massachusetts is an exception because he can't carry and use his firearm - they're a bunch of freedom-hating communists over there. In other places you can carry and use them without problems. As for freedom - again, you've been brought up in a different system than Americans usually go through, so this might be foreign to you, but the government needs to err on the side of giving too many freedoms. Nobody has the 'freedom' to murder, it's just a consequence of fucked up people - NOT guns, fucked up people.

As for the clear fact... here's something you may have forgotten: America is not in Europe. Your solutions don't work here as often as you'd like. So I actually can 'prove' (as much as statistics can prove) that citizens with firearms make the area around them safer - go to the links I posted earlier, and you'll find (among other things) a comparison between post-CCL Florida and the rest of the nation (their crime rates dropped double-digits compared to the rest of the nation in a very short time) and a post detailing how it is a 'clear fact' that guns don't 'cause' (in the loosest sense of the word) any more murders than they prevent (in the most direct sense of the word) and they also keep another million (give or take) crimes from happening. Whoops, sorry about those clear facts that prove that America is not fucking Germany.

First, your original post sounded like a raving lunatic blathering away about how gun companies want to kill people to sell more product... good luck with that. Second, you sound about as sober as a bottle of vodka. Third, you're making the mistake of blaming crimes on guns. Fuck that. If you seriously think that guns are the problem, and not people who are undereducated total bastards who have been failed by every system that touched them, there is no point in discussing this with you until you can show me the secret laboratory filled with guns that shoot themselves. Fourth, Germany does have quite a few guns (30 per 100 people)... Finland and Canada have more, and without the crime rates America has. 

So I've actually already taken care of your 'guns increase crime' bullshit, and it's clear that you're only bluffing to make it look like you're being reasonable. Once more, quit blaming guns for stupid decisions - Americans have been doing that for decades, and it's only made things worse. New York's crime rates a century ago were five times that of London's - when nobody had gun control of any kind. It's childish and irresponsible (not to mention again illogical) to blame anything but people for their bad decisions, and the sooner we stop doing this the better America will be.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

I forgot how much Europe _hates_ freedom.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 1, 2009)

Well ,we have those low crime rates without any guns! So how do you explain that? 
What about giving every fucking "reasonable" citisen a cruise missile? If they have a clear backround ,you have the right to obtain them right?
We are talking about tools which made to kill. Ofcourse guns kill people! Try to kill me with a baseball bat ,or try to fight against anyone with a bottle! It ain't work. But with guns ,you have the ability to keep distance ,be a sneaky bitch and kill anyone you like to.

As long as you don't get catched ,it's "easy" to kill someone and still have a clean backround!

You arguments doesn't hold water. It's clear that D.C or wherever crime rates go down when you give everyone ,even a baby a gun (Check google.you can find it).But for how long? When do "criminals" begin to steal those guns too? 

German or better said European system doesn't fit to America we know it. But give me one fuckin' example how we got a "police" state ,when even the police doesn't carry guns?

The weapons in Finland and Canada are more rifles for hunting. You ain't walk to walmart and buy one! So this is not a comparison.

I am not snob at al ,I am resanoble. And with that attitude what you had ,you wouldn't get a gun from me! You are too risky to loose control!

Oh and you can't impress me with the "stolen" gun stuff. It's not just a "loose inspection" issue. If it's like that ,why you guy don't bust the inspectors balls instead of letting it happen then sell more guns!

You clearly don't unterstand our peacefull mind .And we can't unserstand our lust to have an Uzi!


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 1, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well ,we have those low crime rates without any guns! So how do you explain that?


The social climate. 



daemon barbeque said:


> What about giving every fucking "reasonable" citisen a cruise missile? If they have a clear backround ,you have the right to obtain them right?


You cant defend your house with those. Nice straw man fallacy. 


daemon barbeque said:


> We are talking about tools which made to kill. Ofcourse guns kill people! Try to kill me with a baseball bat ,or try to fight against anyone with a bottle! It ain't work. But with guns ,you have the ability to keep distance ,be a sneaky bitch and kill anyone you like to.


Sneaky? You know how _loud_ a gun is? Ever been _near _ one? Also, what about all the pistol range, target gunclubs and guys who do olympic target shooting? Guess they're all serial killers, eh? 



daemon barbeque said:


> You arguments doesn't hold water. It's clear that D.C or wherever crime rates go down when you give everyone ,even a baby a gun (Check google.you can find it).But for how long? When do "criminals" begin to steal those guns too?


Maybe you should read some more DC crime report stats. 



daemon barbeque said:


> The weapons in Finland and Canada are more rifles for hunting. You ain't walk to walmart and buy one! So this is not a comparison.


The only guns you can buy at walmart are... Surprise... Shotguns and rifles... For hunting! You have to buy handguns from specialty gun stores. 


daemon barbeque said:


> I am not snob at al ,I am resanoble. And with that attitude what you had ,you wouldn't get a gun from me! You are too risky to loose control!


Sure you are, you're seeing the entire world as clear cut, black and white, without having experienced it at all from the point of view of people in america. 



daemon barbeque said:


> You clearly don't unterstand our peacefull mind .And we can't unserstand our lust to have an Uzi!


Cause everyone with a gun is a terrorist/serial killer. Yep.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well ,we have those low crime rates without any guns! So how do you explain that?



Perhaps your country's not full of bloody Americans. Now, there are about 30 guns for each 100 Germans, if I'm not mistaken - however, you have more murders than Canada, a country that has more guns. I don't know how you have lower crime rates, but to say that America's high crime rates is due to guns is completely flawed (as detailed in above posts) and you're no longer making a reasonable case so much as showing off Germany.



daemon barbeque said:


> What about giving every fucking "reasonable" citisen a cruise missile? If they have a clear backround ,you have the right to obtain them right?



Clear strawman argument. I'm not even in favor of *governments* having cruise missiles, as it takes the fun out of everything.



daemon barbeque said:


> We are talking about tools which made to kill. Ofcourse guns kill people!



You know, I've never fucking thought of *that* before...

Sometimes you need to kill people. Sometimes they endanger you or try to take away your rights. You're not saying anything people don't know, but you have highlighted an important part of the argument already - they're *tools*, and nothing more. I've shot thousands of rounds through more guns than I can think of off the top of my head... but I haven't killed anyone. Hmm...




daemon barbeque said:


> As long as you don't get catched ,it's "easy" to kill someone and still have a clean backround!



Try it, then - seriously, Bush is an asshat.



daemon barbeque said:


> You arguments doesn't hold water. It's clear that D.C or wherever crime rates go down when you give everyone ,even a baby a gun (Check google.you can find it).But for how long? When do "criminals" begin to steal those guns too?



Then attack them directly instead of this tangiential posturing. I put a much more detailed response to all of this in earlier posts, so until you start there this is just very silly of you. As for "when do criminals begin to steal those guns too"... the criminals HAD THEM ALL ALONG. THAT IS THE POINT. And then people defend themselves and things get BETTER.



daemon barbeque said:


> German or better said European system doesn't fit to America we know it. But give me one fuckin' example how we got a "police" state ,when even the police doesn't carry guns?



I didn't say you had a police state, I'm saying that your posts are full of poor arguments that would bring about a police state even worse than the one we're already fighting off. The 'logic' of your first post would have us all tried under the Geneva convention because we make music and music can be used for torture.



daemon barbeque said:


> The weapons in Finland and Canada are more rifles for hunting. You ain't walk to walmart and buy one! So this is not a comparison.



The vast majority of our firearms (about 70&#37 are also rifles and shotguns for hunting. It is a comparison.



daemon barbeque said:


> I am not snob at al ,I am resanoble. And with that attitude what you had ,you wouldn't get a gun from me! You are too risky to loose control!



And how am I unreasonable? You haven't gone over previous posts, which puts all of your posts at the level of underinformed blathering and posturing. The 'clear facts' (I'm not saying this sarcastically, they're actually clear facts) are that private firearm ownership is easily linked to decrease in crime, and while gun ownership increases the crime rate in the country has been decreasing for nearly 20 years now.



daemon barbeque said:


> You clearly don't unterstand our peacefull mind .And we can't unserstand our lust to have an Uzi!



No, there's a lot more you don't understand. I don't believe in violence for any reason other than defending my life and rights, period. No war (I'm not even in favor of a standing military), no arbitrary murdering to show off my weapons, nothing of the sort. That doesn't mean I want to take away other people's rights, or that I want my rights taken away by someone who thinks they know better than me despite the 'clear facts' showing that gun control in this country is a miserable failure. One thing intelligent Americans (yes, all eight of us) learn from their history classes is that rights that can't be defended are as good as gone - and, as has been said before, I simply have a hard-on for freedom.

Long story short: our problems are far beyond guns. Switzerland has less crime and fewer murders per capita than Germany... handing out guns to their militia members and subsidizing ammo clearly makes everything worse for them, because most of their violent crimes aren't committed with guns. You're not nearly as familiar with our social climate as Americans are, and as a result cannot see why we have bigger problems than gun ownership.

Jeff


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 1, 2009)

Wow, i like how we did the exact same thing


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

That's because we're awesome.

Jeff


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> That's because we're awesome.
> 
> Jeff



I dont think i am, cause i own guns. I must be a serial killer : (


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

Yes, but you only kill commies and emos, indicating that you, as well, have a hard-on for freedom&#8482;.

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 1, 2009)

I know I'm not contributing much to the current discussion, but I saw this ad on TV the day before election day... 



What a fucking idiot... so instead of using an effective, physical technique that you learned for self-defense (I guess?), its better to use a gun? I'm proud to be a human - I've given up on being proud to be an American.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

Why not use a gun?

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 1, 2009)

Because you're a top notch black belt?

Someone like me could pull a gun on someone that was breaking into my house, and everyone would probably be like "Good thing you had a gun, dude, you probably would have been fucked".. but Chuck Norris? I'm from Western PA, and deal with hicks every day, so when I hear an idiot say something like this, its not hard to evoke a rage from within.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

What if the assailant is armed? What if you don't feel like running around chasing someone?

Jeff


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 1, 2009)

What if the assailant is bruce lee threatening to kick your ass like he did that last time in Return of the Dragon when Chuck got owned?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 1, 2009)

I'm angry because of what Chuck Norris said. He's confident that he could take some dude out without a gun, but he'd rather use one. If you had to chase the dude around, it wouldn't be much of a threatening situation 

But, yeah, if the person is armed, a gun is good idea. Or at least an axe, because that implies a streak of insanity, and a necessarily denotes being metal, which is what's most important


----------



## Mattmc74 (Jan 1, 2009)




----------



## FlyingBanana (Jan 1, 2009)

Classic.


----------



## silentrage (Jan 1, 2009)

I like how guns reduced crime rate in some places, because at face value it just sounds so ridiculous, yet statistics prove that it works. I guess only in Florida, so to speak.

I've always wondered how a similar scenario might play out with a different weapon, and on a larger scale.

We've lost a like what, 20 million people in 2 world wars before nuclear powers were born, after that we've had 50 years of peace. Relatively speaking of course, there's a genocide going on in Iraq and Palestine but those numbers don't even come close to WWI and II casualties. So if you gave every US citizen a nuke, would you then have 0 crime rate?  That's some mutually assured assrape right there.

Is that not what we're doing right now on a global scale? 

I mean fuck Israel have nukes, they only attack a neighbouring country every other day, and you couldn't find a people with a bigger chip on their shoulder if you tried, that's a 6 million inch deep chip there. 
Russia has nukes, they just fcked up Georgia like a wrestler taking candy from a comatose paraplegic baby.
The USA and Iran has them, you've been eyeing each other before Dubya even got elected.
Even NK had a nuke at 1 point, they don't even have fcking cell phones!!!

It sure doesn't _sound_ safe.

/just randomly spewing shit out of my head, don't mind me.


----------



## CC323 (Jan 1, 2009)

See, the OP's situation is one of the things that makes me pissed off at people in this country. In Israel, Krav Maga, a highly efficient combat system, is practically mandatory from high school onward. People here will bitch about police encroaching their freedoms (which I do agree does happen), but then complain about people owning guns, and then complain even more that *they* might have to learn how to defend themselves if the police and gun ownership basically disappear. I think if more non-felon, non-psychopathic people knew how to send a guy into shock by dislocating his elbow, the crime rate would drop drastically.

No offense if you disagree. Sorry for the rant.

Chris


----------



## silentrage (Jan 1, 2009)

CC323 said:


> See, the OP's situation is one of the things that makes me pissed off at people in this country. In Israel, Krav Maga, a highly efficient combat system, is practically mandatory from high school onward. People here will bitch about police encroaching their freedoms (which I do agree does happen), but then complain about people owning guns, and then complain even more that *they* might have to learn how to defend themselves if the police and gun ownership basically disappear. I think if more non-felon, non-psychopathic people knew how to send a guy into shock by dislocating his elbow, the crime rate would drop drastically.
> 
> No offense if you disagree. Sorry for the rant.
> 
> Chris



I actually agree here, S.Korea is like that, they also have mandatory military training. So the thugs are usually people that dropped out of school, they couldn't take on ppl who had all the martial arts training in school then.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 1, 2009)

CC323 said:


> See, the OP's situation is one of the things that makes me pissed off at people in this country. In Israel, Krav Maga, a highly efficient combat system, is practically mandatory from high school onward. People here will bitch about police encroaching their freedoms (which I do agree does happen), but then complain about people owning guns, and then complain even more that *they* might have to learn how to defend themselves if the police and gun ownership basically disappear. I think if more non-felon, non-psychopathic people knew how to send a guy into shock by dislocating his elbow, the crime rate would drop drastically.
> 
> No offense if you disagree. Sorry for the rant.
> 
> Chris



What about the elderly, or people not that physically fit? Only people who are athletic enough to be able to do martial arts should be allowed to defend themselves?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 1, 2009)

I don't think he said that the elderly and people who can't physically defend themselves should be left for dead.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 1, 2009)

He's saying he doesn't know why we shouldn't learn how to defend ourselves with martial arts so we don't need guns. If you take guns away from everyone, then that includes the elderly, unless he's implying there should be an exception for old folks, or people in a wheel chair, in which case those guns can get stolen and you've solved nothing.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

CC323 said:


> See, the OP's situation is one of the things that makes me pissed off at people in this country. In Israel, Krav Maga, a highly efficient combat system, is practically mandatory from high school onward. People here will bitch about police encroaching their freedoms (which I do agree does happen), but then complain about people owning guns, and then complain even more that *they* might have to learn how to defend themselves if the police and gun ownership basically disappear. I think if more non-felon, non-psychopathic people knew how to send a guy into shock by dislocating his elbow, the crime rate would drop drastically.
> 
> No offense if you disagree. Sorry for the rant.
> 
> Chris



That's because Israel has a hyper-aggressive culture. They have mandatory military service too.



silentrage said:


> I like how guns reduced crime rate in some places, because at face value it just sounds so ridiculous, yet statistics prove that it works. I guess only in Florida, so to speak.
> 
> I've always wondered how a similar scenario might play out with a different weapon, and on a larger scale.
> 
> ...



Dude, seriously, what the fuck? Just some names/conflicts off the top of my head here that you should look up:

Pol Pot - Responsible for between 750,000 and 1.7 million deaths.
Idi Amin - Responsible for between 100,000 to 500,000 deaths.
Saddam Hussein Al Tekriti
The DR Congo Civil Wars - >5.4 million
Rwandan Civil Wars - 1.35 million
Ethiopian Civil Wars - 1.4 million
Afghanistan War (Rambo, anyone?) - 1.8 million
Iran-Iraq War - 1 million
BOTH Gulf Wars
Korean War - 2.8 million
Second Indo-China War - 3.5 million
Bosnia
Kosevo

I can't think of any more right now, but as you can see it's been a really quiet 50 years. [/sarcasm]

EDIT: Got some (scary) numbers from: Twentieth Century Atlas - Death Tolls

EDIT2: Back on topic. To be honest, I'd be the first person to fucking waste someone who came into my house uninvited if I had a gun, but to be honest I hate the damn things. They're great for home defence but when the buggers are taken OUT of the home, then we've got a problem.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 1, 2009)

I'd slug someone in the leg with a gun if I had no other choice, but I wouldn't be able to purposely kill someone... unless they were harming a loved one, because that would enrage me beyond repair. But in the case that I'm alone and someone attempts to rob me, and I have a gun, I'll use it to stop the person so that they can be arrested.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'd slug someone in the leg with a gun if I had no other choice, but I wouldn't be able to purposely kill someone... unless they were harming a loved one, because that would enrage me beyond repair. But in the case that I'm alone and someone attempts to rob me, and I have a gun, I'll use it to stop the person so that they can be arrested.



Well... Yeah, that's pretty much what I meant. I mean I wouldn't kill them, because then how can I make witty remarks about how I shot them inna leg? Now, if someone CAME at me or a family member with a weapon then that's different...


----------



## silentrage (Jan 1, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> That's because Israel has a hyper-aggressive culture. They have mandatory military service too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Did any of those conflicts happened directly between 2 nations with nuclear weapons? (Sorry I'm busy today so didn't wiki all those yp yet, only from memory)
My question was: Is Nuclear deterrence preventing countries who has the "big guns" from open conflict a macrocosmic equivalence of widespread gun ownership preventing crimes in a country/state. 
So that should exclude people who don't have guns, as they'd still be beating each other's heads in with sticks or machete. 

I think you'll notice that the wars you listed involving the most technogically backwards nations had the highest casualties. 

But I'll admit I didn't know how many people died post WWII in conflicts, those numbers are rather depressing.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

silentrage said:


> Did any of those conflicts happened directly between 2 nations with nuclear weapons? (Sorry I'm busy today so didn't wiki all those yp yet, only from memory)
> My question was: Is Nuclear deterrence preventing countries who has the "big guns" from open conflict a macrocosmic equivalence of widespread gun ownership preventing crimes in a country/state.
> So that should exclude people who don't have guns, as they'd still be beating each other's heads in with sticks or machete.
> 
> ...



Thankfully no, but several indirectly. Iran and Iraq both had chemical and/or biological weapons too.

I really don't think nuclear weapons are a deterrent. Go watch Dr. Strangelove or Wargames if you get the chance. I also don't think that nuclear weapons are a good analogue to guns.

Well, guns are not hard to come by in any of the areas where I mentioned. Especially the humble AK47 and the Chinese made equivalents.

Well, hang on a second. In the Democratic Republic of Congo Civil Wars the rebels or what have you had a huge supply of guns. Sure they used knives but guns are pretty damn plentiful. My Grandad fought with the UN Peacekeepers in the Congo and they had a hard time of it too.

And yes, humanity is depressing.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

As amazing as Dr. Strangelove was, you'll notice that it's a work of fiction - none of that actually happened.

Jeff


----------



## CC323 (Jan 1, 2009)

I'm not saying that guns should be banned. I'm also not saying elderly should be left for dead. I'm saying that those who bitch about the existence of police _and_ fight *for* destruction of gun rights, but still choose to complain about personal safety, are hypocrites with no real substance to their arguments IMO. I am completely for selective gun rights. Switzerland is one of the few European countries that has very lax gun laws, and has one of the lowest gun crime/murder rates in Europe. UK, on the other hand, with very strict gun control, has one of the highest murder rates in the EU. But, when you don't have cops, or guns for defense, what the f*ck else do you have?


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> As amazing as Dr. Strangelove was, you'll notice that it's a work of fiction - none of that actually happened.
> 
> Jeff



Yes, but unfortunately the concept of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction for all you Cold War n00bs ) is not a work of fiction and is a problem even to this day. One can only hope it will never be as bad as it was.

Hell, even Fallout has MAD as a major plot device.


----------



## silentrage (Jan 1, 2009)

My sympathies go to your granddad, he must've witness some stuff no human should.

Well they're not a perfect analogy, I'm mostly here cuz I'm bored. 

But if some people had knives while everyone else had guns, obviously the knife wielding criminals would steer clear of the gun wielding citizens.
In that sense nations armed with AKs and tanks would only be able to oppress others that don't have any nukes, so if every nation had nukes...
well they'd just oppress their own people, WTF HUMANITY??? FUCK!!!


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

Fallout was also, fortunately, a work of fiction.

Say what you will... MAD worked well enough. Any nukes gone off in your ass lately? Nope, didn't think so. Elegant? No. Preferable? No. Sane? Fuck no. But has it killed us yet? I don't think so.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Fallout was also, fortunately, a work of fiction.
> 
> Say what you will... MAD worked well enough. Any nukes gone off in your ass lately? Nope, didn't think so. Elegant? No. Preferable? No. Sane? Fuck no. But has it killed us yet? I don't think so.
> 
> Jeff



Will it kill us all? Possibly. In times gone past, very possibly. It's so _very _easy to make a mistake. Several near misses happened during the Cold War. Including flocks of seagulls pretending to be ICBMs and poorly timed wargaming exercises.

I'm all for nuclear weapons the same way I'm all for AIDS.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

ZeroSignal said:


> In times gone past, very possibly.



Wait, nuclear wars that didn't happen can kill us from the past?

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Wait, nuclear wars that didn't happen can kill us from the past?
> 
> Jeff



Grammatical mistake. It should probably read "very nearly".

My point is that to this day the nuclear power are staring each other in the face waiting for one or the other to make a move. ESPECIALLY India and Pakistan. To say that this is not so is fallacy.

EDIT: Perhaps this is a good analogy to guns because once some psycho gets their hands on them then we're all in trouble. The only difference is that one detonation is pretty final for the entire globe.

The Doomsday Clock currently reads 5 minutes to midnight... Just thought you all might like to know.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

Guns and nukes hold entirely different defensive roles... in the way Ken pointed out, nukes don't defend homes too well unless you know your enemy is quite some distance away and not going anywhere far or safe. Hopefully people aren't that stupid, but what can we do?

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Guns and nukes hold entirely different defensive roles... in the way Ken pointed out, nukes don't defend homes too well unless you know your enemy is quite some distance away and not going anywhere far or safe. Hopefully people aren't that stupid, but what can we do?
> 
> Jeff



But this is the thing about nukes; one even leaves it's silo and it's basically all over. For _everyone_. I wasn't really arguing a nukes=guns stance it was just the shortsighted idea that nukes keep us all "safe".


----------



## JBroll (Jan 1, 2009)

Yeah, they don't keep us safe, but in a sense a million are safer than one.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 1, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Yeah, they don't keep us safe, but in a sense a million are safer than one.
> 
> Jeff



I'd rather have the option marked "None" but I know that's not going to happen... -_-'


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 2, 2009)

How does this nuke comparison even relate to individual ownership of firearms?


----------



## silentrage (Jan 2, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> How does this nuke comparison even relate to individual ownership of firearms?



My amazing thread derailing talents at work.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 2, 2009)

silentrage said:


> My amazing thread derailing talents at work.



You're a god damn legend, son.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 2, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Ehem ,first ,You are far away from calling my words upper bullshit.



upper bullshit. 

Are we forgetting the lower bullshit? 



daemon barbeque said:


> Try to kill me with a baseball bat ,or try to fight against anyone with a bottle! It ain't work. But with guns ,you have the ability to keep distance ,be a sneaky bitch and kill anyone you like to.


I can be a sneaky bitch with a broken bottle or a baseball bat if I wanted. Sure I still have to get within arms length, but I can guarantee you'd never see it coming.


----------



## winterlover (Jan 2, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I know I'm not contributing much to the current discussion, but I saw this ad on TV the day before election day...
> 
> 
> 
> What a fucking idiot... so instead of using an effective, physical technique that you learned for self-defense (I guess?), its better to use a gun? I'm proud to be a human - I've given up on being proud to be an American.






i'm approve



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Holy fucking shit cakes. I can't believe you didn't shoot the guy honestly, permit or no. You're lucky you were able to control yourself and think rationally. That guy had to be pretty fucking dumb to advance on a guy with a loaded gun pointed straight at them, or more likely, high as fuck.



yup, woulda shout him in his head. then three more times once he was on the ground. try it again bitch


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 2, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> You're a god damn legend, son.



BWHAHAHAHAHA...


----------



## noodleplugerine (Jan 3, 2009)

silentrage said:


> I like how guns reduced crime rate in some places, because at face value it just sounds so ridiculous, yet statistics prove that it works. I guess only in Florida, so to speak.
> 
> I've always wondered how a similar scenario might play out with a different weapon, and on a larger scale.
> 
> ...



Actually post of the year.

And Jeff, you're arguing very logically, but based on 2 very questionable premises.

Firstly, you're justified in killing a mugger (personally I don't believe you're ever justified to kill, period). (Moral question yay.)

And secondly, that negative freedom is the way to go, which is SUPER questionable. (Political question, yay. Don't you just love philosophy).

As you were.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 3, 2009)

First... anything endangering your life is in my opinion grounds for self defense. I'm about as pacifistic as it gets when I'm not dealing with situations that could kill me... but if you're going to be a fruitcake about it then shoot for the shoulders and kneecaps.

Second... what the balls are you talking about?

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jan 3, 2009)

noodleplugerine said:


> Actually post of the year.


Because it's so bad it's good? hehheh


----------



## noodleplugerine (Jan 3, 2009)

JBroll said:


> First... anything endangering your life is in my opinion grounds for self defense. I'm about as pacifistic as it gets when I'm not dealing with situations that could kill me... but if you're going to be a fruitcake about it then shoot for the shoulders and kneecaps.
> 
> Second... what the balls are you talking about?
> 
> Jeff



Firstly, don't be so fucking aggressive. I'd never serve you a firearm 

Secondly, negative freedom, ie, the ability to do whatever you want without restriction, and further on that a society has no place restricting you from doing things without justification, an anarchistic view. You're basing your argument on the idea that people shouldn't be restricted, or in other words - restricting people is wrong, which is so debatable that really your entire argument has no weight :s

Oh and btw, robber =! life threatening.

Hell, if a robber wants to kill someone they don't come in through the window.



silentrage said:


> Because it's so bad it's good? hehheh



No because it was a perfect analogy


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 3, 2009)

noodleplugerine said:


> Firstly, don't be so fucking aggressive. I'd never serve you a firearm
> 
> Secondly, negative freedom, ie, the ability to do whatever you want without restriction, and further on that a society has no place restricting you from doing things without justification, an anarchistic view. You're basing your argument on the idea that people shouldn't be restricted, or in other words - restricting people is wrong, which is so debatable that really your entire argument has no weight :s
> 
> ...



Jeff wasn't being that aggressive. 

And how do you know what a robber is going to do? A robber can be life threatening. Think of Richard Ramirez. He burglarized people, then raped and killed them. The point of entry has absolutely nothing to do with a burglar's intentions. Or, they might very well kill you if you see them, thinking to leave less witnesses. The fact is, once they've committed the crime of invading your home, and you have absolutely no idea what kind of weapon they might have, or what they're capable of, you SHOULD have every right to defend yourself, even if that means preemptively killing them so they don't kill you.

The guy was walking towards Willith with a CROWBAR. That can be a deadly weapon. He was actually cool headed enough to not kill the guy, but not many people would have made that choice. Someone advancing on you with a crowbar is not a good thing.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 3, 2009)

noodleplugerine said:


> Firstly, don't be so fucking aggressive. I'd never serve you a firearm
> 
> Secondly, negative freedom, ie, the ability to do whatever you want without restriction, and further on that a society has no place restricting you from doing things without justification, an anarchistic view. You're basing your argument on the idea that people shouldn't be restricted, or in other words - restricting people is wrong, which is so debatable that really your entire argument has no weight :s
> 
> ...



First, that's not aggressive.

Second, I'm basing arguments around giving people as many rights as possible. I believe that your rights end only where they begin to infringe upon the rights of others in a noticeable way. I do *not* believe that restrictions from murder or other violations of rights are wrong, but as long as you harm noone else I see no reason to place restrictions. If you want to debate that, go ahead and save it for another thread, but before you say that my arguments have no weight keep in mind that only a few of my arguments were based around my view of human rights and others just used patterns and statistics to make the case that it doesn't work.

"Oh and btw", robbers can be life threatening, and the way they get in isn't going to be perfectly indicative of what they plan to do.

Jeff


----------



## Mattmc74 (Jan 3, 2009)

JBroll said:


> First, that's not aggressive.
> 
> Second, I'm basing arguments around giving people as many rights as possible. I believe that your rights end only where they begin to infringe upon the rights of others in a noticeable way. I do *not* believe that restrictions from murder or other violations of rights are wrong, but as long as you harm noone else I see no reason to place restrictions. If you want to debate that, go ahead and save it for another thread, but before you say that my arguments have no weight keep in mind that only a few of my arguments were based around my view of human rights and others just used patterns and statistics to make the case that it doesn't work.
> 
> ...


----------



## JBroll (Jan 3, 2009)

Forgive me for not taking seriously the clown who insisted that body wood didn't affect guitar sounds and who apparently can't even read a post right, but... goddamn.

Jeff


----------



## silentrage (Jan 3, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Forgive me for not taking seriously the clown who insisted that body wood didn't affect guitar sounds and who apparently can't even read a post right, but... goddamn.
> 
> Jeff



I don't see how a boner could affect guitar sounds either. 

Wait, wrong body wood?


----------



## JBroll (Jan 3, 2009)

Yeah, wrong body wood.

Jeff


----------



## ohio_eric (Jan 3, 2009)

On topic this thread will return. 

or


----------



## willith (Jan 4, 2009)

noodleplugerine said:


> Firstly, don't be so fucking aggressive. I'd never serve you a firearm
> 
> Secondly, negative freedom, ie, the ability to do whatever you want without restriction, and further on that a society has no place restricting you from doing things without justification, an anarchistic view. You're basing your argument on the idea that people shouldn't be restricted, or in other words - restricting people is wrong, which is so debatable that really your entire argument has no weight :s
> 
> ...



Shooting a burglar is hardly an anarchistic viewpoint- in fact, I would think that burglaring would be far closer to anarachy than the use and possession of firearms. 

A perpetrators entry point has absolutely no baring on their intentions; I can't imagine why you would think it would. Again, to reiterate one of my earlier points- nobody knows if this guy had other weapons on him. Regardless, it still was a life-threatening situation, if not my life, than definitely his.


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 4, 2009)

willith said:


> Shooting a burglar is hardly an anarchistic viewpoint- in fact, I would think that burglaring would be far closer to anarachy than the use and possession of firearms.



This.

Retaliation isnt anarchy. Doing anything, up to and including things taboo in 'regular' society, regardless of consequences and rules, is far closer to anarchy than defending yourself from that...


----------



## killiansguitar (Jan 4, 2009)

JBroll said:


> "Oh and btw", robbers can be life threatening, and the way they get in isn't going to be perfectly indicative of what they plan to do.





willith said:


> A perpetrators entry point has absolutely no baring on their intentions; I can't imagine why you would think it would.



Quoted for truth.



noodleplugerine said:


> Oh and btw, robber =! life threatening.



I'm curious as to how you came to this BULLSHIT conclusion. Its these kind of ridiculous assumptions that could very easily get you killed.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 5, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Perhaps your country's not full of bloody Americans.



Sorry man! I was Ill after the new year party ,so couldn't write back!Have a Nice year first..And let's go with "your style".

Yeah ,if you think your country is full of bloody Americans ,why do yo make them more dangerous with guns? A motherfucker killed his son with his AK and the kid was 3 years old. You know ,these things make me against weapons...These things make me mad. 



> Clear strawman argument. I'm not even in favor of *governments* having cruise missiles, as it takes the fun out of everything.



Well the point is this. There are 2 main gun arguments pro-gun people use. The Law and the Crime rates. 

The Law allows you to have a gun and protect yourself against tyranny. Well ,at that time ,as the 2. amendment was signed/written ,there where no missiles ,so you guys had the right to have what the army had.
So ,if you think you can save yourself witha desert eagle against airstrike ,you are highly mistaken.




> You know, I've never fucking thought of *that* before...






> I've shot thousands of rounds through more guns than I can think of off the top of my head... but I haven't killed anyone. Hmm...



I never had something like that!If you will get really high/drunk one day and get into something agressive ,I hope you won't have a gun around!
Well ,in a civil world ,nobody can take your rights away just like that. Just because W took your rights with patriot act and all the other filth ,doesn't mean that you have to kill someone for it. A civil system is build on knowledge ,respect and acceptable rules. I am not for a police nation as you pointed out before ,and I am for freedom. But as you can see ,your system gives you the right to own guns ,but not the right to stay against the police. We don't have casualties because a police thought the snickers bar/wallet/cellphone was a gun! The gun freedom brings more police violence/brutality ,since the police fears of his life 7/24



> I put a much more detailed response to all of this in earlier posts,


 Sorry man ,It was allmost a dialogue between you and me ,so I just wrote like a conversation.here is a better style.


> so until you start there this is just very silly of you. As for "when do criminals begin to steal those guns too"... the criminals HAD THEM ALL ALONG. THAT IS THE POINT. And then people defend themselves and things get BETTER.



Dude ,this Gun thing was lasting forever. The 20's for example. But you know ,if you have Pawn shops with lot's of nice guns to get ,and don't control everything right ,you just can't pump more guns into the system and wait more guns are getting washed and used. Believe me ,this is just a "clean" sight form outside ,you have ro take a year in Europe to see it better. You guys need to fix the problem ,instead of fighting with foreighners who try to understand and fix the problem!



> I didn't say you had a police state, I'm saying that your posts are full of poor arguments that would bring about a police state even worse than the one we're already fighting off. The 'logic' of your first post would have us all tried under the Geneva convention because we make music and music can be used for torture.


Really poor argument. Everything can be used to kill ,even water .But they have other purposes. But handguns are for killing.

I am not against sport shooting actually ,it's good for eye-hand coordination and many people can discharge. But those guns have to kept in lock "in the club". And had to have different ammo.



> One thing intelligent Americans (yes, all eight of us) learn from their history classes is that rights that can't be defended are as good as gone - and, as has been said before, I simply have a hard-on for freedom.



So this is the point man! You just need 8 guns... Seriously ,that's my very point. You give people deadly weapons with no talen/wisdom/controle or whatever. A guy got a rifle for his CAT! It's already 4 years old news so i couldn't find it anymore ,but you guys hand out guns like Coca Cola bottles.



> Long story short: our problems are far beyond guns. Switzerland has less crime and fewer murders per capita than Germany... handing out guns to their militia members and subsidizing ammo clearly makes everything worse for them, because most of their violent crimes aren't committed with guns. You're not nearly as familiar with our social climate as Americans are, and as a result cannot see why we have bigger problems than gun ownership.



Man think about this ,Europe is as big as America ,and we have no borders here. And as opposite to America ,we have Russia ,Syria ,Iraq etc as neighbours...There are far more guns "sneaking" in than you can imagine. And then we have the NeoNazi buffs ,and their weaponry..So don't tell me about crime and whatnot. But still we don't have the urge to buy weapons as much as possible and spill the bloody bastards brains on sand ya know?

Take this example ,it explains everything what I want.



> Woman, 92, Dies in Shootout With Police
> Nov 21 11:10 PM US/Eastern
> 
> 
> ...






Metal Ken said:


> The social climate.



So why not change the social climate instead of giving "bad mooded" americans more guns? It really doesn't make any sense !



> You cant defend your house with those. Nice straw man fallacy.


 Ofcourse you can !


> Sneaky? You know how _loud_ a gun is? Ever been _near _ one? Also, what about all the pistol range, target gunclubs and guys who do olympic target shooting? Guess they're all serial killers, eh?



Well after the "victim" gets shot ,who cares if it's loud or not. Guns where found for their range .
I am not against sports shooting. But as you guys know ,there are different ammo for that ,plus ,you can buy different guns for that purpose. Just because someone likes to shoot some discs doesn't mean he have to have it in his van to bust some ass!


> Maybe you should read some more DC crime report stats.


The gun problem is not 20 years old man! It's older ,and we will see the DC results in some years. I remember the Reagan era "hump" on crime rate. Who knows what Obama will bring!




> The only guns you can buy at walmart are... Surprise... Shotguns and rifles... For hunting! You have to buy handguns from specialty gun stores.


The Shotgun is one of the most deadly weapons you can buy. Perfect fit ,you can aim on your belly level ,and the range is acceptable. Better than any handgun in many cases!


> Sure you are, you're seeing the entire world as clear cut, black and white, without having experienced it at all from the point of view of people in america.



That's not true. I grew up with Americans and my father worked in American Base as a techncial manager. Actually ,My best 2 friends where Americans ,I had 4 neighbours (maybe more) ,and 2 American flatmates. I am more "projected" to American culture as you might know.

I don't see anything as clear cut. I am a Vet. and I am well trained to solve complexer problems. 
In medicine ,if you use a method and you see it's not working ,you just quit that method and search for something else.




> Cause everyone with a gun is a terrorist/serial killer. Yep.


I never told that! But Everyone with a gun can be one of it really easily. Some drugs ,some psycho. inbalance ,some social stress ,some religious indoctrination ,some nationalism and patriotic indoctrination or just some teenager nerdyness can bring that to life. It happens all the time!


----------



## wannabguitarist (Jan 5, 2009)

So an old lady was killed after she fired upon police serving a warrant? Good, you don't shoot at cops (hell you don't shoot at people in general)


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> So why not change the social climate instead of giving "bad mooded" americans more guns? It really doesn't make any sense ![/'quote]
> You try changing the minds of 350 million people individually. Get back to me when you figure it out.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 5, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> You try changing the minds of 350 million people individually. Get back to me when you figure it out.


Well giving them weapons still don't make any sense!




> Cause if you're going to shoot someone, the ideal method of operation is not to get caught. Kinda hard to do when you put out a explosive noise loud enough to be heard by anyone within 3 city blocks or more. As far as sport shooting, that shows your ignorance with firearms. You do use slightly different ammo, but you use the same kind of guns, and the ammo is also just as deadly, and even more accurate, since its more refined.



Silencer?

I am not ingnorant man. I am talking about other guns like air guns. You guys really make me tired with your high horses sometimes.




> Check the statistics of florida, when they passed the concealed carry law. Crime rates leveled out and dropped, while the rose nationally.


That's another point. Is this the reincarnation of WildWest or something? Should I really walk around the streets and think which Buff has a gun in his pocket?
You guys make your lifes really harder.




> Yeah, but you "can buy different ammo", like you said. Use bird shot, or something. fuck that, you can use 1 ounce lead slugs. Yeah they're one of the most deadly weapons. Why do you think people use them for _*HUNTING* LARGE GAME_?


You can ripp the heart off from 30 meters ,that's enough to kill someone!My cousin is a Hunter ,again ,this attitude is not helping dude !



> Military culture maybe. A military base doesnt accurately display the vast array of american culture you find here.


Yeah but everything else. heck ,I discuss YOUR gun problem on internet with you! What about this "cultural" exchange!




> Yeah, and guns bans havent ever worked here. Try something different.
> 
> 
> > Well ,why not make a plan and try to clean guns from your country in the next 40 years? Why are you guys soo impressed and charmed by the GUN thing at all? Why not a fucking Katana like a real man?


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Sorry man! I was Ill after the new year party ,so couldn't write back!Have a Nice year first..And let's go with "your style".
> 
> Yeah ,if you think your country is full of bloody Americans ,why do yo make them more dangerous with guns? A motherfucker killed his son with his AK and the kid was 3 years old. You know ,these things make me against weapons...These things make me mad.



They're dangerous without guns, we keep guns for our own enjoyment and defense.



daemon barbeque said:


> Well the point is this. There are 2 main gun arguments pro-gun people use. The Law and the Crime rates.
> 
> The Law allows you to have a gun and protect yourself against tyranny. Well ,at that time ,as the 2. amendment was signed/written ,there where no missiles ,so you guys had the right to have what the army had.
> So ,if you think you can save yourself witha desert eagle against airstrike ,you are highly mistaken.



Well, it's a good thing I never claimed anything of the sort... Ken handled that one already.



daemon barbeque said:


> I never had something like that!If you will get really high/drunk one day and get into something agressive ,I hope you won't have a gun around!



?

I actually don't get aggressive with things like that, and I'm not likely to shoot people for any reason at all other than self defense. You have very odd impressions of Americans.



daemon barbeque said:


> Well ,in a civil world ,nobody can take your rights away just like that. Just because W took your rights with patriot act and all the other filth ,doesn't mean that you have to kill someone for it. A civil system is build on knowledge ,respect and acceptable rules. I am not for a police nation as you pointed out before ,and I am for freedom. But as you can see ,your system gives you the right to own guns ,but not the right to stay against the police. We don't have casualties because a police thought the snickers bar/wallet/cellphone was a gun! The gun freedom brings more police violence/brutality ,since the police fears of his life 7/24



In a prepared world, we always have a backup plan. Our police brutality doesn't come so much as a result of guns, and I'm not sure how you got that impression. 



daemon barbeque said:


> Dude ,this Gun thing was lasting forever. The 20's for example. But you know ,if you have Pawn shops with lot's of nice guns to get ,and don't control everything right ,you just can't pump more guns into the system and wait more guns are getting washed and used. Believe me ,this is just a "clean" sight form outside ,you have ro take a year in Europe to see it better. You guys need to fix the problem ,instead of fighting with foreighners who try to understand and fix the problem!



I cannot parse this.




daemon barbeque said:


> Really poor argument. Everything can be used to kill ,even water .But they have other purposes. But handguns are for killing.



No, it's not a poor argument because you were horribly unclear and permissive in your above post.

Again, I FUCKING KNOW handguns are for killing. And sometimes that's necessary. Why is it that you think that stating something so blatantly obvious (something that has already been acknowledged more than once) is an argument?

I am not against sport shooting actually ,it's good for eye-hand coordination and many people can discharge. But those guns have to kept in lock "in the club". And had to have different ammo.



daemon barbeque said:


> So this is the point man! You just need 8 guns... Seriously ,that's my very point. You give people deadly weapons with no talen/wisdom/controle or whatever. A guy got a rifle for his CAT! It's already 4 years old news so i couldn't find it anymore ,but you guys hand out guns like Coca Cola bottles.



Most systems don't allow for that. Again, you have a very strange view of America - one guy in one state doesn't represent the whole country. Keep in mind that our states tend to have widely varying gun policies - what you're doing is roughly analogous to me saying that I know all Germans wear funny pants because I went to a festival in Bavaria.



daemon barbeque said:


> Man think about this ,Europe is as big as America ,and we have no borders here. And as opposite to America ,we have Russia ,Syria ,Iraq etc as neighbours...There are far more guns "sneaking" in than you can imagine. And then we have the NeoNazi buffs ,and their weaponry..So don't tell me about crime and whatnot. But still we don't have the urge to buy weapons as much as possible and spill the bloody bastards brains on sand ya know?



Wow, it's a good thing that actually counters the point you posted it under... I know there are guns sneaking in everywhere, and that's one reason gun control can't work here. You're only defending our assertions that social climate is responsible for the mess.




daemon barbeque said:


> So why not change the social climate instead of giving "bad mooded" americans more guns? It really doesn't make any sense !



What, do you think this is some kind of Disney movie? If you want to try, go right ahead - it's not like some asshole in D.C. programmed us wrong and didn't feel like patching us up.



daemon barbeque said:


> Well after the "victim" gets shot ,who cares if it's loud or not. Guns where found for their range .
> I am not against sports shooting. But as you guys know ,there are different ammo for that ,plus ,you can buy different guns for that purpose. Just because someone likes to shoot some discs doesn't mean he have to have it in his van to bust some ass!



He refuted your point. Quit dodging it.



daemon barbeque said:


> The gun problem is not 20 years old man! It's older ,and we will see the DC results in some years. I remember the Reagan era "hump" on crime rate. Who knows what Obama will bring!



He didn't say it was 20 years old. Learn how to argue with people instead of straw men. Banning guns led to a skyrocketing crime rate.



daemon barbeque said:


> The Shotgun is one of the most deadly weapons you can buy. Perfect fit ,you can aim on your belly level ,and the range is acceptable. Better than any handgun in many cases!



Yeah, except for that concealed defense thing they're pretty tasty.



daemon barbeque said:


> That's not true. I grew up with Americans and my father worked in American Base as a techncial manager. Actually ,My best 2 friends where Americans ,I had 4 neighbours (maybe more) ,and 2 American flatmates. I am more "projected" to American culture as you might know.



How much time did you spend away from bases? How much time did you spend in actual cities? And how long did it take for you to get your ass handed to you on a platter when you mouthed off about how guns should be banned? For someone who grew up in America you know embarrassingly little. 



daemon barbeque said:


> I don't see anything as clear cut. I am a Vet. and I am well trained to solve complexer problems.
> In medicine ,if you use a method and you see it's not working ,you just quit that method and search for something else.



You could stand to spend some time dealing with your communication problems, if you're going to pride yourself on that.

Gun control is a method that we saw to be not working. How long will it take before that's bashed into your head?



daemon barbeque said:


> I never told that! But Everyone with a gun can be one of it really easily. Some drugs ,some psycho. inbalance ,some social stress ,some religious indoctrination ,some nationalism and patriotic indoctrination or just some teenager nerdyness can bring that to life. It happens all the time!



Maybe, but it won't be the gun that made him a terrorist.

Jeff


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> You guys really make me tired with your high horses sometimes.



"Our" high horses? You're the motherfucker who walks in with embarrassingly little knowledge of the actual gun situation in America, claiming to have all of the answers without paying the slightest bit of attention to the fact that WE TRIED THAT AND IT DIDN'T WORK. You're worse than we could ever hope to be.



daemon barbeque said:


> heck ,I discuss YOUR gun problem on internet with you!



Yeah, about that... perhaps you shouldn't.



daemon barbeque said:


> Well ,why not make a plan and try to clean guns from your country in the next 40 years? Why are you guys soo impressed and charmed by the GUN thing at all? Why not a fucking Katana like a real man?



We tried that. It doesn't work. How long will it take for you to understand that? Not only is it wrong by the standards held by most people here, it hasn't worked yet with more elaborate plans than you give Americans credit for.

Every post makes it more and more obvious that you know far too little to hold a competent discussion. I don't find this challenging or amusing anymore.

Jeff


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 5, 2009)

Sorry JB ,but with this kind of attitude ,I won't argue with you!I am not a Motherfucker ,nor do I have just a little knowledge.You are the one whou shot many rounds in his head not me!
You are the nation with the problem ,you are the nation who could't fix the problem. I am really out of this stuff. You guys take your "tools" and really use it for some joyfull sports and recreation. 

Once you or one of your close family member/friend get shot buy a drunken ass with a legit gun ,you will understand me better!

One thing , Yes we have sneaking weapons everywhere ,all illegal and whatnot ,but we still don't have your problem! Why??? What's wrong with us?

BTW ,thanx for replying my Happy new year wishes,being polite enough ,analyzing my communication skills ,trying to paint me as ignorant and stupid.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

With your failure to counter the points made in previous posts and insistence that things that didn't work should be tried some more - when you're not the one who has to deal with the consequences - I can't help but lose patience. Statistics and history are on our side, not yours.

If another family member or friend of mine gets assaulted, it won't be by a legitimate weapon - and seeing as how they tend to be armed I don't think it'll be a problem.

Again... our problem is *not* the guns. Your failure to understand that is the key problem here. Bringing that up - as well as examining other countries with loose gun restrictions - hurts the case you're trying to make far more than you realize, and at this point I might as well be defending gravity against someone who thinks he can fly. Social climate is the key problem here, and trying to blame anything else is backwards, ineffective, and irresponsible.

EDIT: In America, a clear majority of murder suspects and murderers have criminal records, and murder victims also very frequently have criminal records themselves. Kennesaw, a town in Georgia mandated gun ownership with very few exceptions; over a period of several years only two murders occurred, and both were with knives; crimes plummeted. CCL policies in Florida have already had their statistics posted - needless to say, crime went down. I could go on for quite some time, but I think it would be better for you to actually take these statistics on themselves and try to counter the post I referenced earlier - the clear conclusion is that millions of crimes are prevented and guns save more lives than are lost in gun-related crimes. I have done extensive research on this myself, and compared to the amount of time I've put into this I can safely say that in comparison you have very little knowledge; in addition, because you don't have to face the consequences for your bad ideas it is incredibly frustrating to deal with your attitude. In conclusion, I'm not aggressive - I'm just very direct and blunt, and no more violent than the average sitcom.

Oh, and happy new year.

Jeff


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 5, 2009)

JBroll said:


> With your failure to counter the points made in previous posts and insistence that things that didn't work should be tried some more - when you're not the one who has to deal with the consequences - I can't help but lose patience. Statistics and history are on our side, not yours.
> 
> If another family member or friend of mine gets assaulted, it won't be by a legitimate weapon - and seeing as how they tend to be armed I don't think it'll be a problem.
> 
> ...



It's not a "failure" or "lack of comprehention". I would accept the "gun is not the problem" argument if people where killed with jelly beans ,but it's not the case.
Every criminal looks for a gun ,since it's then easiest and fastest way to get the job done!

And you can't never know who uses a "legal" gun for not legal action. Just look at the media man! that's enough to see all the mess!

Anyways ,hope your new "try" to fix the problem works. Till the peace is filling your "social climate" as you say ,I will stay sceptical on your points.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

People are killed with things that aren't guns, and the percentage of guns used in crimes is INSANELY low.

We do have a good idea about how often people use legal and illegal guns for illegal action, and illegal guns are used far more often.

Jeff


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Well giving them weapons still don't make any sense!


And taking them away from people who are legally entitled to them isnt the answer either. 




daemon barbeque said:


> Silencer?


Still very percussive and could be heard through apartment walls. again, you obviously arent too well versed in the whole gun thing. 



daemon barbeque said:


> I am not ingnorant man. I am talking about other guns like air guns. You guys really make me tired with your high horses sometimes.


well, look dude, you're making everything look incredibly black and white, which it isn't. If it, was, the problem would have been solved. And as far as ignorance, your arguments are showing you've never probably so much as held a gun, much less fired one. 



daemon barbeque said:


> That's another point. Is this the reincarnation of WildWest or something? Should I really walk around the streets and think which Buff has a gun in his pocket?
> You guys make your lifes really harder.


In the wild west, gun fights were a less common occurrence than you actually think. Once again, look it up. 




daemon barbeque said:


> You can ripp the heart off from 30 meters ,that's enough to kill someone!My cousin is a Hunter ,again ,this attitude is not helping dude !



Yeah, thats why you use them. Cause a hugeass buck will not do anything but get pissed off when you shoot it with a pellet gun. 



daemon barbeque said:


> Well ,why not make a plan and try to clean guns from your country in the next 40 years? Why are you guys soo impressed and charmed by the GUN thing at all? Why not a fucking Katana like a real man?



Didnt i just say the whole gun ban thing _didnt _ work?


----------



## willith (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> Sorry JB ,but with this kind of attitude ,I won't argue with you!I am not a Motherfucker ,nor do I have just a little knowledge.You are the one whou shot many rounds in his head not me!
> You are the nation with the problem ,you are the nation who could't fix the problem. I am really out of this stuff. You guys take your "tools" and really use it for some joyfull sports and recreation.
> 
> Once you or one of your close family member/friend get shot buy a drunken ass with a legit gun ,you will understand me better!
> ...




I don't understand why you bothered posting in this thread in the first place. You clearly don't have a firm grasp on the English language- so I'm really wondering whether or not you can even understand everything being discussed here. Your posts are incredibly hard to decipher, so I'm still not sure if your English is that bad or if your thoughts are really that inane. 
I don't go around to Deustche speaking forums copying and pasting translations from freetranslation.com- so help us understand why you are.


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 5, 2009)

willith said:


> I don't understand why you bothered posting in this thread in the first place. You clearly don't have a firm grasp on the English language- so I'm really wondering whether or not you can even understand everything being discussed here. Your posts are incredibly hard to decipher, so I'm still not sure if your English is that bad or if your thoughts are really that inane.
> I don't go around to Deustche speaking forums copying and pasting translations from freetranslation.com- so help us understand why you are.



I can understand him just fine. He's making an effort at debate where as you just sound like you're trying to be intolerant. 

If you don't agree with him then that's just fine but don't try to speak down to him because English isn't his first language.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

Plenty of people here who don't speak English as their first language are far more comprehensible - most of his posts required several readings, and I still wonder whether I understood a few things right. The point about understanding what was said is even more relevant, as he kept posting the same nonsense over and over without any attention at all paid to refutations and better interpretations of the data by Americans. I don't even think his posts were really an effort at debate, given how little attention was paid to the facts instead of his own personal bias and how poorly informed he showed himself to be.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> The Law allows you to have a gun and protect yourself against tyranny. Well ,at that time ,as the 2. amendment was signed/written ,there where no missiles ,so you guys had the right to have what the army had.
> So ,if you think you can save yourself witha desert eagle against airstrike ,you are highly mistaken.



Well, technically we're getting airstrikes from our own guys already.  But that's a different subject which puts me into the tinfoil hat department...



daemon barbeque said:


> Dude ,this Gun thing was lasting forever. The 20's for example. But you know ,if you have Pawn shops with lot's of nice guns to get ,and don't control everything right ,you just can't pump more guns into the system and wait more guns are getting washed and used. Believe me ,this is just a "clean" sight form outside ,you have ro take a year in Europe to see it better. You guys need to fix the problem ,instead of fighting with foreighners who try to understand and fix the problem!


We attempted to ban alcoholic beverages, in an attempt to make society "better". It failed miserably because we consume alcohol, as a nation. All it opened up was organized crime. A gun isn't that hard to make for a machinist. Fly-by-night gunsmiths would open up in this country if we were to ban guns. This isn't an excuse, it's a reality. "fixing the problem" is a lot more complex than it seems to you from afar.




daemon barbeque said:


> Man think about this ,Europe is as big as America ,and we have no borders here. And as opposite to America ,we have Russia ,Syria ,Iraq etc as neighbours...There are far more guns "sneaking" in than you can imagine. And then we have the NeoNazi buffs ,and their weaponry..So don't tell me about crime and whatnot. But still we don't have the urge to buy weapons as much as possible and spill the bloody bastards brains on sand ya know?



Remember of course, that we are back-Asswards, and we for whatever reason, tolerate unreal amounts of violence in our movies and TV programs, (nothing inherently wrong with that), but show just one nipple and we go ape-shit.  Compare this to shows I've downloaded that run on the BBC, wherein the level of uncensored nudity is on a level that would cause public outcry in the US.



daemon barbeque said:


> So why not change the social climate instead of giving "bad mooded" americans more guns? It really doesn't make any sense !



Because we don't have a social thermostat. Or air-conditioning. 



daemon barbeque said:


> And you can't never know who uses a "legal" gun for not legal action. Just look at the media man! that's enough to see all the mess!



You mean the media which is pro-police state? 

Really, I'm right now going to look up the nations murder rates right now and see how many people were killed with a spoon last year. I shall return.

Edit: Well bollocks, nobody breaks statistics down that far. I guess spoons are lumped in with blunt objects.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 5, 2009)

I went back again, and realized i forgot to address some Lol-worthty points. 



daemon barbeque said:


> Yeah ,if you think your country is full of bloody Americans ,why do yo make them more dangerous with guns? A motherfucker killed his son with his AK and the kid was 3 years old. You know ,these things make me against weapons...These things make me mad.


Someone in town got beaten with a bat. You know, i think baseball bats should be banned. I mean, yeah, they _can_ be used for sports, but sometimes people beat other people with them. So we should ban them. Lets ban Cinderblocks too. Cause yeah, there's buildings that have been built with them. But people have gotten beaten and curbjawed on them. so we should ban those too. While we're at it, lets ban cars, too. I mean, yeah. They get you places, but look how many people they kill!




daemon barbeque said:


> Well the point is this. There are 2 main gun arguments pro-gun people use. The Law and the Crime rates.
> 
> The Law allows you to have a gun and protect yourself against tyranny. Well ,at that time ,as the 2. amendment was signed/written ,there where no missiles ,so you guys had the right to have what the army had.
> So ,if you think you can save yourself witha desert eagle against airstrike ,you are highly mistaken.




Let me reiterate:


Yeah, the Law allows you to protect yourself against tyranny. For now. Till the laws get changed. We used to have laws that guaranteed that we had to have a fair trial, and be told of the crimes we were accused of (Haebus Corpus). But our president decided that was a bad idea, cause it made it harder to capture terrorist or some bullshit. So guess what we dont have now? BTW, quit throwing the straw man of an airstrike out there, its been shot down, and its pointless. 






daemon barbeque said:


> Man think about this ,Europe is as big as America ,and we have no borders here. And as opposite to America ,we have Russia ,Syria ,Iraq etc as neighbours...There are far more guns "sneaking" in than you can imagine. And then we have the NeoNazi buffs ,and their weaponry..So don't tell me about crime and whatnot. But still we don't have the urge to buy weapons as much as possible and spill the bloody bastards brains on sand ya know?



because you dont have a gun culture in europe. Its why they have machines in japan that sell panties, but not in america. 


Sorry, just had to address those


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 5, 2009)

Also, the fact that was brought up earlier of Canada having more guns per capita (rifles and shotguns that is) has been ignored by the anti-gun folk. I don't know the website to compare the murder rate in Germany to Canada, but I doubt we're that much higher than you guys.

EDIT: I'm not finding exact numbers, so I can't verify with a link the percentage of gun owners, but if it's not MORE than the US, it's at least near their percentage, of that I'm fairly certain.


----------



## CC323 (Jan 5, 2009)

Also, Switzerland, one of the most lax gun policy-possessing European nations, has one of the lowest gun crime rates in Europe, whereas the UK has extremely strict gun control and one of the highest violent crime and murder rates. And if you want AK-47's to stop coming into the country, you should go down to Bolivia and politely ask FARC to stop illegally bringing weapons to our country, as full automatic weapons are banned in many states for legal ownership.


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 5, 2009)

But semi auto rifles are easy enough to convert to fully auto.


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 5, 2009)

wannabguitarist said:


> So an old lady was killed after she fired upon police serving a warrant? Good, you don't shoot at cops (hell you don't shoot at people in general)



It was about having a Legal weapon and using it! The police doesn't had any sign that they where police oficers ,so she thought maybe they where trying to rob her (old people allways think about it).

It's a clear demonstration of a "legal" gun used in an illegal way ,and her "self defence with a gun" was not effective.She died!



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Also, the fact that was brought up earlier of Canada having more guns per capita (rifles and shotguns that is) has been ignored by the anti-gun folk. I don't know the website to compare the murder rate in Germany to Canada, but I doubt we're that much higher than you guys.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not finding exact numbers, so I can't verify with a link the percentage of gun owners, but if it's not MORE than the US, it's at least near their percentage, of that I'm fairly certain.



No it isn't.I adressed that before ,since you guys own more hunting rifles on rural areas. The crime-rate in Alaska is lower too ,altough they have lot's of guns.

Again ,I am not against rifles in rural areas.

The crime-rate of Canada is lower than Germany.But the life-standart is higher ,and the population per square kilometer is lower.



willith said:


> I don't understand why you bothered posting in this thread in the first place. You clearly don't have a firm grasp on the English language- so I'm really wondering whether or not you can even understand everything being discussed here. Your posts are incredibly hard to decipher, so I'm still not sure if your English is that bad or if your thoughts are really that inane.
> I don't go around to Deustche speaking forums copying and pasting translations from freetranslation.com- so help us understand why you are.



You mean "Deutsch" speaking forums?

I am using the same arguments again and again since you guys serve me the same microwaved bullshit.

My English might be not so well , but I still can discuss around here. You might not agree with me ,but you are lucky that that guy didn't had a gun and just shut you down!

Next time ,when yo want to discuss or make a point ,use your brain ,and be a real man! Maybe hanging around body building forums are not so good for ya!

I am still happy that you are safe and sound. You need time for some impovements .



Metal Ken said:


> And taking them away from people who are legally entitled to them isnt the answer either.


So you agree with me that "both" ways are wrong. So what is your solution?


> Still very percussive and could be heard through apartment walls. again, you obviously arent too well versed in the whole gun thing.


It's enough to shoot someone from a motorcycle. The Marsilian mafia loves it ,and it's a common practice. I know what I am talking about!




> And as far as ignorance, your arguments are showing you've never probably so much as held a gun, much less fired one.



That's really kind of you. My cousin is a hunter and I shot many times whit his rifles. My father was angry about it since I was 15...That was the last time. But seriously ,I am not interested in guns ,so I am not planning to buy one or shoot again.



> In the wild west, gun fights were a less common occurrence than you actually think. Once again, look it up.



I was not reffering to gun fights ,more about carrying guns.if you read my words again ,you will understand.



> Didnt i just say the whole gun ban thing _didnt _ work?



Yes you did ,but you couldn't reason why would it be good to give guns to every other "normal" guy?

Look people !

You can tell me that your asses are in danger and the only way to feel safe or self protection is a gun. I can understand that!

You can tell me that you are a gun freak and have gun fetish so I can understand it.

But don't tell me that producing and giving more guns to the people is the only solution or you want "freedom" to everyone . That doesn't make any sense!


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> My English might be not so well , but I still can discuss around here. You might not agree with me ,but you are lucky that that guy didn't had a gun and just shut you down!



The guy might have had a gun, but because he had a gun trained on him, he might not have reached for it. Think about it the other way around, what if the burgler had had a gun, and Willith didn't? I doubt he'd be here to post his story. Just because you have a gun doesn't mean you HAVE to use it. It can be a tool for intimidation, not just killing. The threat of death is there, but if you put that fear into them you probably won't have to use it, and that clearly works because the guy didn't fuck with Willith.

Like I said, he very well could have had a gun, but it's kind of difficult climbing through a window with one of those in your hand, so it could have been tucked into his pants or something, who knows?


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 5, 2009)

Metal Ken said:


> > Someone in town got beaten with a bat. You know, i think baseball bats should be banned. I mean, yeah, they _can_ be used for sports, but sometimes people beat other people with them. So we should ban them. Lets ban Cinderblocks too. Cause yeah, there's buildings that have been built with them. But people have gotten beaten and curbjawed on them. so we should ban those too. While we're at it, lets ban cars, too. I mean, yeah. They get you places, but look how many people they kill!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 5, 2009)

Having melee weapons against an attacker who has a gun won't do shit, and even suggesting it is pretty ridiculous. If the attacker is climbing through a window, chances are the gun isn't in his hand that moment. If he reaches for it, you shoot him. In all likely hood, unless someone has come to your house for the specific reason of harming you, he won't have the gun in his hand, especially if he thinks you're gone, which this guy did since he had already broken into several apartments that were empty for the holidays. That's not to say he might not have had it on his person.

No one is saying that guns will immediately stop &#37;100 of crime. It can help sometimes, other times it can't. If it's in the hands of a responsible person, who keeps it locked up, and doesn't whip it out like it's their dick to prove they're a man, then it can't hurt to have it.

All anyone is saying is that responsible gun ownership will help alleviate more crime than it will cause, which statistics have proven. It's not an opinion that these guys have, it's a fact, backed up with studies and statistics. 

This is coming to you from a non gun owning Canadian. I don't even own a pellet gun. When I buy my own house, I'll probably buy a shotgun. Do I live in a big city with lots of crime? No, I'm not that concerned about it at all. It can't hurt having it, I don't have any children, or anyone I have to worry about playing with it and accidentally shooting themselves or me.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 5, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Kennesaw, a town in Georgia mandated gun ownership with very few exceptions; over a period of several years only two murders occurred, and both were with knives; crimes plummeted. CCL policies in Florida have already had their statistics posted - needless to say, crime went down.



I quote myself because I'm awesome.

Jeff


----------



## wannabguitarist (Jan 5, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> It was about having a Legal weapon and using it! The police doesn't had any sign that they where police oficers ,so she thought maybe they where trying to rob her (old people allways think about it).
> 
> It's a clear demonstration of a "legal" gun used in an illegal way ,and her "self defence with a gun" was not effective.She died!



Of course her "self-defense" wasn't effective, she was shooting at cops (and she actually hit them too). I bet if someone was actually trying to rob her they would stop if they were fired upon (especially if they were hit). The police aren't exactly going to go "fuck this, totally not worth my time" if they're getting shot at.



JJ Rodriguez said:


> Also, the fact that was brought up earlier of Canada having more guns per capita (rifles and shotguns that is) has been ignored by the anti-gun folk. I don't know the website to compare the murder rate in Germany to Canada, but I doubt we're that much higher than you guys.
> 
> EDIT: I'm not finding exact numbers, so I can't verify with a link the percentage of gun owners, but if it's not MORE than the US, it's at least near their percentage, of that I'm fairly certain.



 More guns per capita than the US and a lower murder rate than Germany. I actually think that it was mentioned in "Bowling for Columbine" and that as quite anti-gun from what I remember



JJ Rodriguez said:


> But semi auto rifles are easy enough to convert to fully auto.



I know a guy that does this for fun in his garage, he's also built a couple of guns. It's kinda hard to ban something that people can make in their own homes.


----------



## Metal Ken (Jan 6, 2009)

daemon barbeque said:


> So you agree with me that "both" ways are wrong. So what is your solution?



The government to step up and do its job to monitor and regulate weapons trafficking and tighter laws for legal purchase of weapons. 



daemon barbeque said:


> It's enough to shoot someone from a motorcycle. The Marsilian mafia loves it ,and it's a common practice. I know what I am talking about!


Chances are those guns are...illegal! 




daemon barbeque said:


> That's really kind of you. My cousin is a hunter and I shot many times whit his rifles. My father was angry about it since I was 15...That was the last time. But seriously ,I am not interested in guns ,so I am not planning to buy one or shoot again.


something that happened 18 years ago (going by your profile)? and you cant remember what kind of rifle it was? Chances are, if it was something smaller like a .22, that'd explain your misconceptions of shooting a regular handgun or rifle. .22s are relatively quiet and have recoil that feels like a Super Soaker water gun. Compare a .22LR (standard .22 rifle shell), having around 100-120 lbs of torque to a .223 (M-14, M-16 assault rifle). The .223 has over 1100lbs of torque and travels 3 times faster. In sheer torque, thats over 11x stronger than something like a small cal. rifle. 



daemon barbeque said:


> I was not reffering to gun fights ,more about carrying guns.if you read my words again ,you will understand.


You should have clarified. Most people who watch western movies thinks everyone carried guns everywhere and had gunfights every day. 



daemon barbeque said:


> Yes you did ,but you couldn't reason why would it be good to give guns to every other "normal" guy?


Those great statistics you keep ignoring, i think. 



daemon barbeque said:


> Look people !
> 
> You can tell me that your asses are in danger and the only way to feel safe or self protection is a gun. I can understand that!
> 
> ...


Ok, Holy fuck. I like guns. I own two. I have a boner for revolvers. I go to target ranges. Does that make you happy? 
And what does you coming in here saying that no one should have them accomplish? 




daemon barbeque said:


> You where talking about straw man?


Only cause you've been doing it the last 11 of so pages, i thought i'd see how well it worked.



daemon barbeque said:


> Electing the same dickhead TWICE is not my fault ya know? And giving guns to all those dickheads who elected that dickhead TWICE is even worse!



Guess what? I was even too young to vote the first time. How am i responsible for this? THat whole sins of the father thing? Yeah, not my problem. Know what is? The tyrannical dickback in the whitehouse for the next 16 days. 



daemon barbeque said:


> There is a reason why we don't have the gunculture here. It's one of the things like cinema-culture...Look at French and German movies ,and you will understand the difference.


I noticed you left out the italian ones. Like the italian westerns ;p


----------



## arktan (Jan 6, 2009)

Didn't we already have a few threads like this? I mean the outcome is quite obvious. Nobody will change his mind and nobody will "win". 

I don't care if you guys love your guns or simply are to afraid to exist without them or use them for sports or hunting (or some other activities  JJ )... It's up to you how you use them and none of my business unless you try to do harm to someone (me included).

But i think that it is quite funny that such a lot of people (especially a few that are "hard on for freedom") are supporting something that is fucking up their country since the late 50s 

What i mean: 

Watch this video


And now tell me that your small arms producer isn't part of it at all... 

Watch this speech. Watch it again.
It's one of the most important things a president said in the last century.
And it's been ignored too much. 
Your personal weapons are most probably a part of it too, even if you don't want to see it and pretend that they defend your freedom.

And yes, i owned a few weapons and i still know how to dissasemble and put them back toghether with a blindfold. Just so you guys know that i'm not a gunophobe dude on an int3rw3bz-place.

Nonetheless, i don't want to discuss if owning a gun was wrong in willith's situation. It wasn't because it didn't go wrong. It could've gone wrong, very wrong. But it didn't. And we shouldn't talk about possibilities since the probabilities of different outcomes were endless... 

But watch the video again please, do me the favor.


----------



## daybean (Jan 6, 2009)

i have a shotgun and a .45 glock always by my bed. i also never leave home with out my glock like my credit card. but this is becaue of extreme shit thst goes on around this border i live next to.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 6, 2009)

arktan said:


> But i think that it is quite funny that such a lot of people (especially a few that are "hard on for freedom" are supporting something that is fucking up their country since the late 50s
> 
> What i mean:
> 
> ...




I'll agree with you that his warning is being ignored. But OH WOW, you totally missed his point.  He didn't mean personal firearms AT ALL.

The military industrial complex he speaks of is basically a page out of 1984. And the U.S. is slowly slipping in that direction. The 2nd amendment was designed for this. If the government pushes too far, we can and will stage another revolution.


----------



## DavyH (Jan 6, 2009)

I wouldn't presume to speak for the US, but the gun culture here is outrageous. _If_ you are going to be robbed or hijacked, the perpetrator _will_ have a gun. Whether you are shot or not is a matter of luck and has nothing to do with the firepower you have at hand, as a rule.

The going rate for an AKN is around $30 per day - that's right, they're hired out - plus whatever ammunition you use.

Weapons of choice: stolen handguns, AK-47/AKN, R5 assault rifle (nicked from the police or army). Collapsible stock assault rifles are definitely the most popular though.

There seems to have been a slight decrease in gun crime - or certainly shootings - of late. Possible reasons: recoveries and destruction of illegal and stolen firearms, more effective policing (for those of you who don't know the SA Police Services, this is a small, unfunny joke), or criminals are becoming less violent of their own accord. I'm inclined to suspect the last.

The upshot: I don't own a firearm and the missis gave hers to a relative. I don't feel any safer with one in the house or on my person. Who knows, I could regret that choice one day, but there y'go.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 6, 2009)

arktan said:


> Didn't we already have a few threads like this? I mean the outcome is quite obvious. Nobody will change his mind and nobody will "win".
> 
> I don't care if you guys love your guns or simply are to afraid to exist without them or use them for sports or hunting (or some other activities  JJ )... It's up to you how you use them and none of my business unless you try to do harm to someone (me included).
> 
> ...




Everyone sensible has already seen this, and you've missed the point completely - the MIC is what's currently running things and the 2nd Amendment was included to help slow this process. Personal firearms haven't fucked up our country since the 50s - easily manipulated sheep and fearmongering bastards have been doing that.

Jeff


----------



## daemon barbeque (Jan 6, 2009)

DavyH said:


> I wouldn't presume to speak for the US, but the gun culture here is outrageous. _If_ you are going to be robbed or hijacked, the perpetrator _will_ have a gun. Whether you are shot or not is a matter of luck and has nothing to do with the firepower you have at hand, as a rule.
> 
> The going rate for an AKN is around $30 per day - that's right, they're hired out - plus whatever ammunition you use.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 6, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Everyone sensible has already seen this, and you've missed the point completely - the MIC is what's currently running things and the 2nd Amendment was included to help slow this process. Personal firearms haven't fucked up our country since the 50s - easily manipulated sheep and fearmongering bastards have been doing that.
> 
> Jeff



Sometimes you and I seem to be very much on the same wave length. 

Although your arguments are a bit better worded than mine.


----------



## Anthony (Jan 6, 2009)

The Atomic Ass said:


> Sometimes you and I seem to be very much on the same wave length.
> 
> Although your arguments are a bit better worded than mine.



He's usually the reason I don't post in these threads, cause if I have anything worthwhile to say, he's already said it better.


----------



## arktan (Jan 7, 2009)

arktan said:


> And now tell me that your small arms producer isn't part of it at all...


^

I'm not talking from the Law and const. aspect of this but of the business side. 
You're buying products from people that fuck your country. Basically you're even supporting a lot of the guys who're selling and sold weapons even to your and our todays enemies. Because the arms business, like every other business, is about profit. Not your security.

It's like buying cigars because you like them while you're having lung-cancer. I don't question your right to smoke lol but your common sense if you smoke when having lung-cancer.

EDIT: But like i said in my last post: I don't care if you have weapons (it's underlined and it's in my first line dedicated for this thread, the line above it is OT). I'm just putting this out there as another viewpoint!

see:



arktan said:


> Didn't we already have a few threads like this? I mean the outcome is quite obvious. Nobody will change his mind and nobody will "win".
> 
> I don't care if you guys love your guns or simply are to afraid to exist without them or use them for sports or hunting (or some other activities  JJ )... It's up to you how you use them and none of my business unless you try to do harm to someone (me included).


----------



## JBroll (Jan 7, 2009)

First, the analogy doesn't fit, as cigars aren't inhaled. Second, what do you propose instead? It's not like all of the arms dealers are located in the States, and it's not like the disappearance of guns would ensure security.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Jan 7, 2009)

arktan said:


> I'm not talking from the Law and const. aspect of this but of the business side.
> You're buying products from people that fuck your country. Basically you're even supporting a lot of the guys who're selling and sold weapons even to your and our todays enemies. Because the arms business, like every other business, is about profit. Not your security.



The arms industry isn't the primary country-fucker-overs. 

They're just making amazing money off of the decisions of those who ARE fucking over our country. Where there's a market...

Now, if only I could get into the arms industry... Seems like good money to be had.


----------



## arktan (Jan 7, 2009)

Wow! Totally forgot this thread, sorry Jeff. I owe you some answers.



JBroll said:


> First, the analogy doesn't fit, as cigars aren't inhaled.



I think that you wanted to say that weapons aren't inhaled, right? 
Maybe it's a bad analogy but the message i wanted to share stays the same from my point of view.



> Second, what do you propose instead? It's not like all of the arms dealers are located in the States,


You're right, off course they're not. One way could be that you buy only weapons of smaller arms-producers which don't have that much money to "support" certain politicians. 
But that's not a satisfying answer (hell, i wouldn't be happy if someone answered me something like that after i posed a question like yours). I even can't recommend some smaller weapon-manufacturers right now which means that you caught me off-guard. I will go over it and then come back again to this thread. 
Looks like a promising discussion. 



> and it's not like the disappearance of guns would ensure security.


Why are people even linking the amount of guns in a certain area with the rate of crime in said area? I never got that.
It's been done by those who are pro-guns and by those who are against.... It works in some places, in some not. Now let's not make it a logical law that weapons decrease crime or increase it. Or did i miss some substantial scientific evidence that clearly states that weapons increase or decrease crime in an area? 
If yes, i'd be glad to see it.


----------



## Drew (Jan 7, 2009)

willith said:


> Alright, so I've got an update for those not following the bb.com thread. I apologize for the way-too-long-thread here, but I won't be on a computer for a few days.
> 
> 
> First off, for anyone thinking they would have "beat the shit" out of an intruder- I can tell you, you're dead wrong (no pun). Yes, I post on a bodybuilding site, yes I work out regularly (and have for years) and yes I was bigger (jacked- not height) and probably could've easily beat the fuck out of him in a fair fight. I'm on my schools hockey team and I've already been kicked out of some games this year for fighting. There are way too many variables in a situation such as this, that would make fighting incredibly stupid. The guy was probably fucked up out of his mind on drugs- and I shouldn't have to tell you, that those people pretty much don't feel pain (I think due to dopamine neurotransmitters in the brain) Plus, the guy had a crowbar- yes that IS a weapon. One shot to the head with that could put you down. (Don't believe me- go watch the russian hammer video) Plus, being in an apartment, it's close-proximity fighting. You cannot swing a bat, lamp, or in my case hockey stick- because walls are too close together. Guns are the ideal weapon of choice in such a situation- so that's why I own them.
> ...




A couple of points. 

1.) So, gun laws only hurt law-abiding citizens... Yet, you've since gone to another state to buy another gun, after having your existing guns legally taken away from you in Massachusetts for various legal violations? Are you trying to prove your "criminals can always get guns?" point here?

2.) Actually, I keep my head surprisingly cooly in tense situations. I don't think that I'd "handle these sort of situations poorly" and therefore I shouldn't own a gun. In fact, based on this post, I'd say I'd probably handle it a bit better than you. 

At the end of the day, dude, for every "I might not be here today without my gun" story, there's also a "my son would be here today if I didn't own a gun" story. You can't say "I'd be dead without my gun, so everyone should support gun ownership," because that opens the door to saying "yeah, well that kid who accidently blew his head off while an Uzi, under heavy supervision, at a gun club would still be alive today if gun ownership was illegal, so no one should own guns." And, obviously, both viewpoints can't be true, can they?

The pros and cons of gun ownership need to be considered in a calm, objective manner. This sort of knee-jerk reaction you're having is exactly the sort of thing that pisses you off about the anti-gun crowd whenever someone dies in a gun accident; I think you need to reconsider why you're posting this, and think long and hard about how what your saying is or isn't any different.


----------



## Drew (Jan 7, 2009)

Now, in a word, if the problem here is "criminals have guns" and the objective is to level the playing field, I'd think the BEST way to do that isn't to put a gun in every household (which may or may not change the dynamic in the event of a crime and in fact may even escalate things and result in a shooting death, and which increases the likelihood of a gun accident killing someone - people living in a house with a gun are WAY more likely to die as the result of a shooting than those who don't, I forget the exact stat but it's something like a 60&#37; increase), but rather to seriously rachet up gun laws and give them some serious teeth with regards to criminals. 

Want to take guns out of the hands of criminals? Institute a no-questions gun buyback program, then proibit anyone with a criminal record from purchasing a firearm or getting a gun permit, instititue significant mandatory sentencing extensions for any convict who used or carried a gun while committing a crime, make carrying or owning a gun without a permit a SERIOUS offense with some significant jailtime if you're convicted, make carrying a gun without a serial number a serious offense with mandatory jailtime, and give mandatory life sentences without parole to anyone who actually fires a gun while committing a crime. Hell, for anyone who _pulls_ a gun while committing a crime. 

If it's very easy to turn in illegal guns, and if you get absolutely FUCKED if you commit a crime while carrying a gun, and spend your life in jail if you actually use that gun in a crime, even waving it at someone, then yeah, I'd say within a couple years we're going to see a LOT less gun crime. 

I mean, if the problem is criminals with guns, why not address that rather than arming the other side? That's sort of the "mutually-assured destruction" approach to stopping crime, and nuking the world isn't a very good way to stop war, you know?


----------



## JBroll (Jan 7, 2009)

Drew, if gun control wasn't so frequently followed by crime jumps, CCL policies weren't frequently followed by crime drops, and Kennesaw, GA didn't have ridiculously low murder rates I might think that stricter laws helped. The AMA, hardly a pro-gun organization, came to the conclusion that the Brady waiting periods and registration didn't impact suicide *or* homicide one way or the other. 

Even in Texas they're strict about background checks, and won't let anyone who was in prison or on parole within five years buy a gun. I agree on stricter punishment for people who use guns in *serious* crime (as possession of a firearm while buying a joint or two is enough to get you more jailtime than a rapist, and that's just overkill - I'd drop the drug wars before doing that as well) and things of that sort.

I'd like to see the 60&#37; increase your talking about; noting Kennesaw and adding a consistent decline in accidental gun deaths, I don't think that the case is very strong even when you're given the strawman of putting a gun in every home. Further, those numbers tend to be incredibly inflated because suicides are frequently included without warning.

Finally, note that mutually assured destruction hasn't ended the world yet. It works against sane people, and *nothing* works against insane people, so for now we could do a hell of a lot worse.

Jeff


----------



## estabon37 (Jan 7, 2009)

Drew said:


> Want to take guns out of the hands of criminals? Institute a no-questions gun buyback program, then proibit anyone with a criminal record from purchasing a firearm or getting a gun permit, instititue significant mandatory sentencing extensions for any convict who used or carried a gun while committing a crime, make carrying or owning a gun without a permit a SERIOUS offense with some significant jailtime if you're convicted, make carrying a gun without a serial number a serious offense with mandatory jailtime, and give mandatory life sentences without parole to anyone who actually fires a gun while committing a crime. Hell, for anyone who _pulls_ a gun while committing a crime.



I suck at legal matters, but here I go anyway.

In this country we did the no-questions buyback thing after the Port Arthur massacre. My personal view is that it worked brilliantly. It's not as if guns don't exist here, but the regulation is much stricter. I have a relative who handed in some very very big guns and it's not as is his life is worse without them - hell, he made some money out of them.

Now the bad. Mandatory sentencing? There was a big thing in the Northern Territory about eight years ago where mandatory sentencing was implemented to 'control juvenile behaviour in remote communities'. This is a complicated way of saying 'putting kids in detention centres for six months for stealing a chocolate bar'. Mandatory sentencing takes power away from judges who may have more experience in these proceedings than the people who make the laws. It virtually nulls legal precedents.

Isn't there debate in the US about removing mandatory sentencing for drug users because it's clogging up the prisons with minor offenders? IMO using mandatory sentencing for one crime then saying it shouldn't apply to another is double standards.

There was a petition in a place I used to work where somebody wanted mandatory minumum sentences implemented for sex offenders. On the surface it sounds like a good idea. But why only this one crime instead of all crimes? Why not six months prison instead of a speeding ticket? The whole point of having courts is to make a decision based on the facts of the case. By removing that power from the courts you're giving it to the politicians.

......................sorry, that was mostly incoherant ranting. Where's JBRoll? He could probably translate most of the above into a logical argument.

EDIT: Never mind, he got in before me.


----------



## willith (Jan 8, 2009)

Drew said:


> A couple of points.
> 
> 1.) So, gun laws only hurt law-abiding citizens... Yet, you've since gone to another state to buy another gun, after having your existing guns legally taken away from you in Massachusetts for various legal violations? Are you trying to prove your "criminals can always get guns?" point here?



I'm not a criminal- that's how I was able to LEGALLY buy my guns. You'd be wise to choose your words more carefully as some attorneys might construe what you say to be *SLANDER and DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.
*
I was merely in the process of attaining my LTC and therefore have broken no laws or been convicted of any "legal violations". You're pretty quick to throw around the term criminal, while seemingly forgetting the fact that driving 1 mph over the speed limit is breaking the law- something I'm sure a law abiding citizen such as yourself has never violated. 
You're insinuating that I am a criminal and negating the fact that somebody broke into my apartment. You're doing nothing but arguing for arguments sake at this point.



> 2.) Actually, I keep my head surprisingly cooly in tense situations. I don't think that I'd "handle these sort of situations poorly" and therefore I shouldn't own a gun. In fact, based on this post, I'd say I'd probably handle it a bit better than you.


Get off your high horse you chooch. You have no idea what you would do in this situation because YOU'VE NEVER BEEN IN THIS SITUATION. You don't own guns, therefore you would NOT have handled the situation better, but probably would've got your skull bashed in with a crowbar. 



> You can't say "I'd be dead without my gun, so everyone should support gun ownership,"


I didn't say it- the Boston Police Department said it, and I think they're in a much better position than you are to make that judgment call. 
Nowhere did I say "everyone should support gun ownership"- that's you insinuating again. This was merely for the people who are the fence and people who have considered attaining firearms. This helps put a face on it- just like any good cause/crusade/propaganda.
I guess it was also for anti-gun chooches such as yourself who think guns aren't good for anything but committing crimes and making redneck headlines once a decade.



> The pros and cons of gun ownership need to be considered in a calm, objective manner. This sort of knee-jerk reaction you're having is exactly the sort of thing that pisses you off about the anti-gun crowd whenever someone dies in a gun accident; I think you need to reconsider why you're posting this, and think long and hard about how what your saying is or isn't any different.


Knee-jerk? L O L. You're kidding right? I believe your use of the term "knee-jerk" was in itself, a knee-jerk reaction. Classic liberal slang to be used in an anti-gun discussion when not wanting to address the validity of a point. "_*18 month* RUSH to war_"=knee-jerk reaction. 
All I did was share my story so people don't forget that these situations DO happen and so that they can learn from my mistakes so they know what to do should they ever find themselves in such a situation. 
You're 23 pages late to this discussion- why'd you even bother?
Perhaps, arguing for arguments sake? Or paris hilton syndrome?


----------



## arktan (Jan 8, 2009)

So basically you're saying that you're right and that another viewpoint someone offers is "arguing for arguments sake". Especially if it's "late to the discussion". 

Dude, are you posting like this on purpose?


----------



## JBroll (Jan 8, 2009)

Willith, now you're making gun owners everywhere look bad.

Drew, your posts are below your usual standard of quality.

Now everybody loses!

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Drew, your posts are below your usual standard of quality.
> 
> Now everybody loses!
> 
> Jeff



I think he did a pretty good job to me.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 8, 2009)

Between the straw-men and the policies that are already somewhat in place with little noticed benefit, I'm actually disappointed.

Jeff


----------



## ZeroSignal (Jan 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Between the straw-men and the policies that are already somewhat in place with little noticed benefit, I'm actually disappointed.
> 
> Jeff



They're working here, the UK and another user has said they're working in Australia.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 8, 2009)

Yes, but this argument is about the States, and last I checked the US wasn't located in the UK or Australia.

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Yes, but this argument is about the States, and last I checked the US wasn't located in the UK or Australia.
> 
> Jeff


 
A pertinent point.

We dont have the same circumstances as the US, with or without guns its a very different social climate over there...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 8, 2009)

Plus, the UK might not be the best example anyways. Isn't their violent crime on a steady increase?


----------



## willith (Jan 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Willith, now you're making gun owners everywhere look bad.
> 
> Drew, your posts are below your usual standard of quality.
> 
> ...



No, I'm defending myself against ridiculous accusations. Who the hell are you to say someone is making gun owners look bad? You carried on an argument with someone who couldn't even speak English for 10+ pages. Keep in mind, that was the same person that viewed firearms as a black/white issue and disregarded any of the facts or statistics anyone presented. The whole time he was fetching to get into other arguments and you just kept feeding him.
Yeah, that didn't make you look like an ass.


----------



## distressed_romeo (Jan 8, 2009)

JJ Rodriguez said:


> Plus, the UK might not be the best example anyways. Isn't their violent crime on a steady increase?



Sadly yes, but that's more based on knife-crime than firearms offences.


----------



## JBroll (Jan 8, 2009)

Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jeff


----------



## Daemoniac (Jan 8, 2009)

^ He didnt sound condescending. He sounded heated, he sounded like he believed in what he was saying, and yeah, he may even have been angry, but he didnt sound like he was talking down to him. Even when he said that he couldnt understand the posts, it wasnt in a 'you're shit, you cant speak english go away and stop it 'cos im clearly better' way, he just said it, none of these "L O L" jabs... it just always sounds like you are talking down to/berating the people you reply against.



distressed_romeo said:


> Say yes, but that's more based on knife-crime than firearms offences.


 
Yeah, i shudder to think what would happen if all those angry god damn chavs got their hands on guns...


----------



## JJ Rodriguez (Jan 8, 2009)

distressed_romeo said:


> Say yes, but that's more based on knife-crime than firearms offences.



Yeah, but the point is that you guys have banned guns, yet violent crime is on the rise, while a place where they legalized concealed carry had their violent crime stats drop. I guess there's no real comparison until the UK legalizes gun possession, which probably won't happen anytime soon


----------



## willith (Jan 8, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jeff



fair enough.


----------



## Randy (Jan 8, 2009)

willith said:


> Yeah, that didn't make you look like an ass.





JBroll said:


> Sarcasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jeff



The only way to settle this is a duel. 

/irony


----------



## eaeolian (Jan 8, 2009)

willith said:


> I'm not a criminal- that's how I was able to LEGALLY buy my guns. You'd be wise to choose your words more carefully as some attorneys might construe what you say to be *SLANDER and DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER.
> *



You know something? You're way the hell out of line. You've had several warnings about this stuff. Have a month or two off to think about.


----------



## noodles (Jan 8, 2009)

Honestly, at this point, I think the best thing for this thread is...


----------

