We need better gun control in this country..

[Keith7]

NM.. just stating the facts..

[Gobbla2001]

we need less idiots...

hey, do you play COD2 on XBOX Live?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
we need less idiots...

hey, do you play COD2 on XBOX Live?

no I don't own it.. I do play gears of war online every now and then tho

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
NM.. just stating the facts..
.
I agree. I think we should all be required to own at least 2 guns and receive mandatory training that'll teach us better gun control of those we own.:nerd:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
no I don't own it.. I do play gears of war online every now and then tho

okay... we were playing yesterday and I saw a username and it looked familiar and thought you may have mentioned it being yours on a thread...

carry on...

[smustangs]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I agree. I think we should all be required to own at least 2 guns and receive mandatory training that'll teach us better gun control of those we own.:nerd:

haha i agree

here we go w/ teh gun control debate

[Keith7]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I agree. I think we should all be required to own at least 2 guns and receive mandatory training that'll teach us better gun control of those we own.:nerd:

you are right.. everyone should own guns so when one person pisses another off, they can settle the situation right there

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
okay... we were playing yesterday and I saw a username and it looked familiar and thought you may have mentioned it being yours on a thread...

carry on...

no my username is si69rebelmasta (my roomate came up w/ it)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
you are right.. everyone should own guns so when one person pisses another off, they can settle the situation right there
.
And better gun control...
so we don't waste bullets.:p

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
you are right.. everyone should own guns so when one person pisses another off, they can settle the situation right there

guns dont kill people people kill people.

people can kill otehrs with a baseball bat or a car but people dont try to take away and control my car or baseball bat so whats the difference?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
And better gun control...
so we don't waste bullets.:p

but if we don't waste bullets people won't have to go buy more, and thats bad for capitalism..

are you socialist??

[Gobbla2001]

WHAT WE NEED ARE LESS MARGARITA FLAVORED SNO-CONES THAT HAVE A HINT OF PICKLE IN 'EM :mad:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
but if we don't waste bullets people won't have to go buy more, and thats bad for capitalism..

are you socialist??
.
I'm very socialistic...
when I've had a few 'ritas.:crazy1:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
WHAT WE NEED ARE LESS MARGARITA FLAVORED SNO-CONES THAT HAVE A HINT OF PICKLE IN 'EM :mad:
.
http://clicksmilies.com/s1106/ernaehrung/food-smiley-011.gif

[Txbroadcaster]

Gun control laws are GREAT...But criminals will still find away to have them. Kinda like drugs and how they are illegal, but easily avaliable.

[jason]

what we need are more people who carry guns, who are trained to use them, so they can shoot people who like to start shooting in public...

[Emerson1]

Yes, because if it was illegal to have any kind of weapon, we all know people like this would feel bad about breaking the law because they illegally own a gun.

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Emerson1
Yes, because if it was illegal to have any kind of weapon, we all know people like this would feel bad about breaking the law because they illegally own a gun.

exactly, if a criminal wants a gun there going to get one so putting bans on guns only hurts people who follow the laws and thats crap if you ask me

[Phil C]

IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED

THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!


:mad: :mad: :mad:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Phil C
IF GUNS ARE OUTLAWED

THEN ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS!!


:mad: :mad: :mad:

:thinking:

that is a very interesting way to put it...

:clap:

[Keith7]

the shooter at Virginia tech bought the guns he used legally... that alone tells me that the current gun laws are not right.. why does a 20 year old need to buy a gun?? he doesn't..

People argue that if guns are outlawed than that will just create a blackmarket for guns, this is probably true to a small extent, but if that happens then have law enforcers target them and create a war on guns...

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
you are right.. everyone should own guns so when one person pisses another off, they can settle the situation right there

thats a liberal cop out to avoid personal responsibility.

[Jason1725]

Yesterday was the perfect example of how gun control doesn't work. If anyone would have been armed no way that guy kills 30+ people.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
the shooter at Virginia tech bought the guns he used legally... that alone tells me that the current gun laws are not right.. why does a 20 year old need to buy a gun?? he doesn't..

People argue that if guns are outlawed than that will just create a blackmarket for guns, this is probably true to a small extent, but if that happens then have law enforcers target them and create a war on guns...
.
What's your opinion on "the war on drugs"?
For it?
Against it?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
What's your opinion on "the war on drugs"?
For it?
Against it?

against part of it.. we need to be concentrating on the more harmful drugs for the most part..

most of the people who are killing others over drugs are getting their guns legally.. but yet we blame the drugs on people getting killed

[Phil C]

You must remember also that one of the first amendments gave citizens the right to bear arms. We have that right guaranteed to us by the constitution.

What is meant by If guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns is that if a law is passed that no one can have guns the crimials will get a hold of some and then the criminals will have guns while the law abiding people won't.

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
the shooter at Virginia tech bought the guns he used legally... that alone tells me that the current gun laws are not right.. why does a 20 year old need to buy a gun?? he doesn't..

People argue that if guns are outlawed than that will just create a blackmarket for guns, this is probably true to a small extent, but if that happens then have law enforcers target them and create a war on guns...

why should everyone be punished because a few and I mean very very few can not control their own lives and emotions. There are stupid people everywhere and gun control laws would not have kept this kid from doing what he wanted to do. He would have simply found another way as will the next one and the ones before them.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Jason1725
Yesterday was the perfect example of how gun control doesn't work. If anyone would have been armed no way that guy kills 30+ people.

if this kid wasn't able to buy a couple of pistols legally, then maybe those 30+ people wouldn't have been killed

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
against part of it.. we need to be concentrating on the more harmful drugs for the most part..

most of the people who are killing others over drugs are getting their guns legally.. but yet we blame the drugs on people getting killed
.
So let me get this correct.
You are pretty much against the "war on drugs".
But:
You are for a "war on guns".
:thinking:

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
the shooter at Virginia tech bought the guns he used legally... that alone tells me that the current gun laws are not right.. why does a 20 year old need to buy a gun?? he doesn't..

People argue that if guns are outlawed than that will just create a blackmarket for guns, this is probably true to a small extent, but if that happens then have law enforcers target them and create a war on guns...

ok so i am 20 years old i do a lot of hunting so there is no reason i should be able to purchase a gun which i did about 3 weeks ago i bought a remington .204. so there is a reason a 20 year old needs a gun or would buy one. so going by your assertions what makes it any better for a 30 or 40 year old to need a gun?

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
if this kid wasn't able to buy a couple of pistols legally, then maybe those 30+ people wouldn't have been killed
well maybe if there was no such thing as cyanide then the holocaust wouldnt have happened. Maybe if there were tougher laws banning the sale of alcoholic beverages no one would be killed in drunk driving accidents.

[Keith7]

a incident like this happens something like once every 20 years, do we want everybody carrying guns around in fear of eachother.. just in case another incident happens in another 20 years

[mistanice]

1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.


1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The difference between being a CITIZEN and being a subject is the ability to defend yourself.

[Gobbla2001]

this wouldn't have happened had some cute fox stuck a pair of breasts in the guy's face...

[Jason1725]

The problem is we as a country should get back to States Rights, this is an issue for the States to decide. The federal government is too big and it was never ment to be this big anyway. "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem" Ronald Reagan

[Phil C]

Read No. 2. This is in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.


http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0oGkjHIASVGBFcAVgdXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE4ZzQ2aWp qBGNvbG8DdwRsA1dTMQRwb3MDMQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANNQVAwM DZfOTU-/SIG=12qpf4p4l/EXP=1176916808/**http%3a//www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html

[Keith7]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
well maybe if there was no such thing as cyanide then the holocaust wouldnt have happened. Maybe if there were tougher laws banning the sale of alcoholic beverages no one would be killed in drunk driving accidents.

here let me use this analogy


the U.N. and the U.S. doesn't want Iran to obtain Uranium in fear that they might develope an atomic bomb.. but why can't Iran have an atomic bomb? I mean the U.S. has one as well as many other countries.. shouldn't every country have an atomic bomb just incase if someone decides to use one??

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
a incident like this happens something like once every 20 years, do we want everybody carrying guns around in fear of eachother.. just in case another incident happens in another 20 years

ok so if this happens once every 20 years you propose we take away every ones guns because of it? the biggest part of my families salary comes directly from gun use my father is a government trapper you take away guns and there goes his job so are you proposing that is ok?

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by mistanice
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.


1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The difference between being a CITIZEN and being a subject is the ability to defend yourself.

Thank you!

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Jason1725
The problem is we as a country should get back to States Rights, this is an issue for the States to decide. The federal government is too big and it was never ment to be this big anyway. "Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem" Ronald Reagan
.
One of my favorite Reagan quotes.:cool:
.
Mistanice has several great points against gun control.:clap:

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
here let me use this analogy


the U.N. and the U.S. doesn't want Iran to obtain Uranium in fear that they might develope an atomic bomb.. but why can't Iran have an atomic bomb? I mean the U.S. has one as well as many other countries.. shouldn't every country have an atomic bomb just incase if someone decides to use one??

because they have a history of genocide and oppression. They preach hate through their own goverment.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by mistanice
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.


1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The difference between being a CITIZEN and being a subject is the ability to defend yourself.

are you implying that the U.S. is going to turn on its citizens and start killing them in mass quanaties.. because that is what happened in all of those situations you mentioned

I have a little more faith in my country to believe incidents like that would happen if we made better gun control laws

[Jason1725]

WACO!!!!!

[mistanice]

Everytime something like this happens there are three groups of people that come out.

1. Ban all guns for whatever reason. They are bad AND wrong.

2. Everybody needs a gun that way it would cut down on the death toll.

3. Let's pass more laws.

[Keith7]

First let me explain part of why i'm biased..

I was shot at once while riding with a friend and a bullet went thru my window and out the other side.. not once did I think " wow I wish I had a gun so I could shoot back".. NO the whole time I was thinking "wow how did this 19 year old crack head get a gun".. then come to find out, he got it legally..

so ya everyone should have guns.. it would fix america's problems :rolleyes:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
here let me use this analogy


the U.N. and the U.S. doesn't want Iran to obtain Uranium in fear that they might develope an atomic bomb.. but why can't Iran have an atomic bomb? I mean the U.S. has one as well as many other countries.. shouldn't every country have an atomic bomb just incase if someone decides to use one??
.
You've got to be kidding. That type of analogy is so horribly flawed it doesn't deserve to be dignified with a response, but here goes.
1. A gun can kill or injure, but best used for self-defense or hunting and it's affect is limited to a very small area. Period.
2. A nuke, especially in the hands of a regime sworn to kill us and our allies is capable of killing millions. The effect is very very large. Iran wants us dead, so NO they shouldn't have it.:rolleyes:

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Keith7
First let me explain part of why i'm biased..

I was shot at once while riding with a friend and a bullet went thru my window and out the other side.. not once did I think " wow I wish I had a gun so I could shoot back".. NO the whole time I was thinking "wow how did this 19 year old crack head get a gun".. then come to find out, he got it legally..

so ya everyone should have guns.. it would fix america's problems :rolleyes:

my friend was hit by a car one night...

[Phil C]

Can't you understand what I mean when I tell you that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution is for American citizens and gives them (us) the right to have guns.

Also can't you understand what it means when it is said that
WHEN GUNS ARE OUTLAWED ONLY OUTLAWS WILL HAVE GUNS"?

THINK THINK THINK!!!!

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
my friend was hit by a car one night...

and #1 yes the guy meant to do it

#2, luckily my friend is athletic...

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
First let me explain part of why i'm biased..

I was shot at once while riding with a friend and a bullet went thru my window and out the other side.. not once did I think " wow I wish I had a gun so I could shoot back".. NO the whole time I was thinking "wow how did this 19 year old crack head get a gun".. then come to find out, he got it legally..

so ya everyone should have guns.. it would fix america's problems :rolleyes:

not trying to take away from your situation but there is no reason to take away my guns because of some one else doing soemthing stupid like that. I am not making light of your situation but i dont agree that they need to take away guns will fix the problem.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
and #1 yes the guy meant to do it

#2, luckily my friend is athletic...

your friend can get out of the way of a car.. a person can't dodge a bullet

We need cars for everyday life.. we don't need guns

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
your friend can get out of the way of a car.. a person can't dodge a bullet

We need cars for everyday life.. we don't need guns

plenty of people use guns in every day life

[mistanice]

Doctors vs. Guns U.S. Statistics:

Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year =120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 (U.S. Dept. of Health &
Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) =1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188 (U.S. Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
your friend can get out of the way of a car.. a person can't dodge a bullet

We need cars for everyday life.. we don't need guns
.
We need guns...
to defend ourselves from those who intend to harm us. It's in the Constitution for a reason.:clap:

[Keith7]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
We need guns...
to defend ourselves from those who intend to harm us. It's in the Constitution for a reason.:clap:

its also in the constitution that only white male land owners can vote...

Times change and so should our laws and amendments.. and this one is one that needs to go..

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
its also in the constitution that only white male land owners can vote...

Times change and so should our laws and amendments.. and this one is one that needs to go..

ya times change but guns will not ever be taken away nor should they be just because some has died because of alcohol should it be illegal for you to drink if you want to?

[Keith7]

A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry, and only 9 of the deaths were determined by police/courts to be justified (FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48). The evidence revealed in the Kellermann study is consistent with data reported by the FBI. In 1993, there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. (FBI, Crime in the United States: Uniform Crime Reports 1994, 1995).

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
its also in the constitution that only white male land owners can vote...

Times change and so should our laws and amendments.. and this one is one that needs to go..
.
That doesn't equate to restrictive gun laws and you know it. Those who are most for banning guns are among the most radical politicos this country has ever seen.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by smustangs
some has died because of alcohol should it be illegal for you to drink if you want to?


maybe it should be illegal, it is alot worse than some other drugs.. but thats another topic..

but ya thats why we have restrictions on who can drink to help prvent that kinda stuff.. to get a gun in virginia, you only have to be a resident

[JasperDog94]

Here's the real problem people. This guy used a car to get to where he was going to shoot these people. If he had no car, then this wouldn't have happened. Therefore we should ban all cars.:mad: :mad:

[smustangs]

The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%).

so should all this be illegal too?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
That doesn't equate to restrictive gun laws and you know it. Those who are most for banning guns are among the most radical politicos this country has ever seen.

I don't think outright banning would be the best idea, although it wouldn't be too bad..

I think the best idea is to have better restrictions.. Like maybe alittle longer waiting period, or mental competincy tests, or maybe even a drug test to buy guns.. I realize even with those restrictions crazy people will still obtain guns, but jeez lets make it harder please

[Jason1725]

That's right, trust a government who tortures prisoners, listens to our phone calls, and illegally reads our e-mail. One that unconstitutionally suspended Habeas Corpus. One that has ran rampant over the Bill Of Rights for years. Yeah that’s a great idea, let's trust that government.

[JasperDog94]

Originally posted by Keith7
...yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns. And how many of those 251 would have gone on a killing spree? We'll never know.:thinking:

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home.

so out of all the deaths they choose 743 i can make stats say anything i want too when i pick and choose my data to anlayze

[injuredinmelee]

i say we ban rap music why we are at it. Rap frequently mentions firearms and not only encourages their use but glorifies it.

[BTEXDAD]

Originally posted by Keith7
the shooter at Virginia tech bought the guns he used legally... that alone tells me that the current gun laws are not right.. why does a 20 year old need to buy a gun?? he doesn't..



I was surprised that an alien could purchase a gun in the US. That law on gun purchases I don't agree with.
He was supposedly a permanent legal resident so he could purchase the gun based on I guess virginia law. Had renewed green card in 2003 and (again) supposedly a background check was done then. Don't know what the gun laws are in VA. Background check would have been done again at purchase in TX.
Nothing wrong with owning guns though. I simply thought thought that right of "people" to bear arms meant citizens, but apparently not. See below:

The Supreme Court stated in Presser v. Illinois,

The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these [Second Amendment] rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States...

Hence, because the Second Amendment did not apply solely to citizens of the United States, "the people" mentioned in the Second Amendment are not necessarily American citizens, but are instead, simply "a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community".

[Keith7]

Originally posted by smustangs
The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%).

so should all this be illegal too?

no you are using a slippery slope argument that is kinda making you look foolish..

there has been much to debate over those things you mentioned and people have taken action to help prevent people from smoking and eating un healthy.. but yet nothing done over guns

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
I don't think outright banning would be the best idea, although it wouldn't be too bad..

I think the best idea is to have better restrictions.. Like maybe alittle longer waiting period, or mental competincy tests, or maybe even a drug test to buy guns.. I realize even with those restrictions crazy people will still obtain guns, but jeez lets make it harder please
.
I'm for less restrictions...
so there. We cancel out!:D

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
no you are using a slippery slope argument that is kinda making you look foolish..

there has been much to debate over those things you mentioned and people have taken action to help prevent people from smoking and eating un healthy.. but yet nothing done over guns

nothing done about guns? There has been more done to limit the purchase of guns than tobacco products. Do a little research. Brady Bill mean anything to you?

[Keith7]

"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")

An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck.

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
no you are using a slippery slope argument that is kinda making you look foolish..

there has been much to debate over those things you mentioned and people have taken action to help prevent people from smoking and eating un healthy.. but yet nothing done over guns

no your statements make you look foolish enought but thats neither here nor there i know its a far streth and stuff is being done my point is people attack guns because they have the ability to kill people why not ban any object every used in a murder while were at it its just a ridiculous topic IMO

[Hansum Stranger]

Originally posted by Keith7
no you are using a slippery slope argument that is kinda making you look foolish..



Hello mirror

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Hansum Stranger
Hello mirror

thank you how about the only quoting 743 deaths haha thast foolish stats can say anything you want if you just pick and choose your data

[Keith7]

Originally posted by smustangs
no your statements make you look foolish enought but thats neither here nor there i know its a far streth and stuff is being done my point is people attack guns because they have the ability to kill people why not ban any object every used in a murder while were at it its just a ridiculous topic IMO

guns are made with the intention of them killing someone or something.. not every object is.. jeez use alittle common sense

[whtfbplaya]

Originally posted by Keith7
First let me explain part of why i'm biased..

I was shot at once while riding with a friend and a bullet went thru my window and out the other side.. not once did I think " wow I wish I had a gun so I could shoot back".. NO the whole time I was thinking "wow how did this 19 year old crack head get a gun".. then come to find out, he got it legally..

so ya everyone should have guns.. it would fix america's problems :rolleyes:

FYI - If he was 19 it was not obtained by him or carried by him legally!

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
guns are made with the intention of them killing someone or something.. not every object is.. jeez use alittle common sense

do you not understand the argument here i am using the stupid comparisons as a way to poke at the stupidity of your claim. its ridiculous

[whtfbplaya]

Originally posted by Keith7
guns are made with the intention of them killing someone or something.. not every object is.. jeez use alittle common sense

Wrong again, many guns are made with no intention of ever killing anything.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by smustangs
do you not understand the argument here i am using the stupid comparisons as a way to poke at the stupidity of your claim. its ridiculous

do you not understand you are using hasty generalizations to ignore my facts

[Keith7]

Originally posted by whtfbplaya
Wrong again, many guns are made with no intention of ever killing anything.

toy guns ??

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
do you not understand you are using hasty generalizations to ignore my facts

im not ignoring anything just makeing the statement that because someone goes off the deep end and uses a gun in a rampage that it doesnt correlate to banning all of our guns. its ridiculous to propose this idea as are my examples i used them for a reason but i fear those went over your head

[whtfbplaya]

Originally posted by smustangs
im not ignoring anything just makeing the statement that because someone goes off the deep end and uses a gun in a rampage that it doesnt correlate to banning all of our guns. its ridiculous to propose this idea as are my examples i used them for a reason but i fear those went over your hear

Well said.

[whtfbplaya]

Originally posted by Keith7
toy guns ??

No real guns.

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
do you not understand you are using hasty generalizations to ignore my facts

i have yet to see you post facts that back up your stance that are not shot down by the facts others are stating in defense.

[Jason1725]

So, bet it's safe to assume you don't own a gun. So you want to take away my right to own a gun given to me by the Bill Of Rights. I can promise you, you will never take away my guns so I guess you are going to make me a criminal, because I am NEVER giving my guns up.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by smustangs
im not ignoring anything just makeing the statement that because someone goes off the deep end and uses a gun in a rampage that it doesnt correlate to banning all of our guns. its ridiculous to propose this idea as are my examples i used them for a reason but i fear those went over your hear

didn't go over my head, they just have no relivance to the argument.. like talking apples and oranges.. anyways I have to write a 12 page paper on democratization in latin america, and it appears (as normal) that I'm preaching to the wrong crowd.. if you guys want to continue this argument go a head, i'll check back later

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Jason1725
So, bet it's safe to assume you don't own a gun. So you want to take away my right to own a gun given to me by the Bill Of Rights. I can promise you, you will never take away my guns so I guess you are going to make me a criminal, because I am NEVER giving my guns up.

amen

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
toy guns ??
.
No, he was saying...
how can you decide in what way is a gun made? How do you decide the intentions in which the actual gun was made?
That's like a slight mind control trick(political correctness) you used right there.:thinking:

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
didn't go over my head, they just have no relivance to the argument.. like talking apples and oranges.. anyways I have to write a 12 page paper on democratization in latin america, and it appears (as normal) that I'm preaching to the wrong crowd.. if you guys want to continue this argument go a head, i'll check back later

yes take your argument to your fellow liberal-change the world because we have no idea what the real world is like students.

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
didn't go over my head, they just have no relivance to the argument.. like talking apples and oranges.. anyways I have to write a 12 page paper on democratization in latin america, and it appears (as normal) that I'm preaching to the wrong crowd.. if you guys want to continue this argument go a head, i'll check back later

were arguing with you when you leave we have nothing to argue but you still crack me up in the sense that you dont understand the use of my examples i know there far off its for a reason but that was lost here i guess its still a dumb fight and will never happen IMO

[Keith7]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
yes take your argument to your fellow liberal-change the world because we have no idea what the real world is like students.

very cool uneducated post.. I like it..

people always argue how bad the world is now.. but then they hate change..

you can't make everyone happy, but we can at least try to make the world alittle safer for everyone and that is my main concern..

if i'm wrong for that... then shoot me

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
very cool uneducated post.. I like it..

people always argue how bad the world is now.. but then they hate change..

you can't make everyone happy, but we can at least try to make the world alittle safer for everyone and that is my main concern..

if i'm wrong for that... then shoot me
.
Wrong crowd man! Wrong crowd!:D :p

[smustangs]

Originally posted by Keith7
if i'm wrong for that... then shoot me

i like irony of this post it made me laught haha :D

[Hansum Stranger]

Originally posted by Keith7

but we can at least try to make the world alittle safer for everyone and that is my main concern..



If you know that I have a gun on me, you won't be coming up to me starting anything. Therefore, my gun made it safer for you. :D

[Reds fan]

There is only one person to blame here, the killer, not guns, not the victims, not the school and not the government. No law would have stopped this guy!

Legally or or not this guy would have gotten a weapon. If not a gun he'd have gotten a car and on a highly populated campus could have run down people. Couldn't find a car... he would have built a bomb... who knows but this kind of insanity cannot and never has been preventable.

The immediate reaction to any violent crime is to make a law, we've got hundreds on the books, but laws don't stop this kind of irrational and tragic behavior. This guy would have found a way.

Virginia Tech University does not allow students or faculty, even those who have a concealed permit, to carry on on the campus so that did not work.

Purely hypothetical I know, but if I were in that situation, had a carry permit and was armed, facing imminent death, I'd die firing back at that sniveling coward!

Stop jumping on the emotional bandwagon and wishing to deny the people of their constitutional right to own firearms and defend themselves.

[Jason1725]

These crazy people who hate the Bill of Rights and the "inalienable rights" given to me by laws of Nature and God. What happened Monday was a sin of the heart and no matter how hard you try you can never stop people from sinning. You can pass laws till your blue in the face but you will never get rid of free will. Instead of passing laws to cure whatever ill of society today brings you will never stop sin. You are only giving more power to the government and giving up freedoms. If you don't believe citizens need guns then there is no United States of America. This country was formed by citizens standing up to a tyrant and an oppressive government. If you don't think it will ever happen here just go back home to whatever world you live in. I choose to stay in the real world. All of the laws in the world would not have stopped what happened yesterday. If that guy wanted to kill bad enough he would have done it no matter what. He chose to commit the sin of murder and no law or more government control could have stopped him. “Those willing to give up a little liberty for a little security deserve neither security nor liberty.” Benjamin Franklin

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Reds fan
There is only one person to blame here, the killer, not guns, not the victims, not the school and not the government. No law would have stopped this guy!

Legally or or not this guy would have gotten a weapon. If not a gun he'd have gotten a car and on a highly populated campus could have run down people. Couldn't find a car... he would have built a bomb... who knows but this kind of insanity cannot and never has been preventable.

The immediate reaction to any violent crime is to make a law, we've got hundreds on the books, but laws don't stop this kind of irrational and tragic behavior. This guy would have found a way.

Virginia Tech University does not allow students or faculty, even those who have a concealed permit, to carry on on the campus so that did not work.

Purely hypothetical I know, but if I were in that situation, had a carry permit and was armed, facing imminent death, I'd die firing back at that sniveling coward!

Stop jumping on the emotional bandwagon and wishing to deny the people of their constitutional right to own firearms and defend themselves.
.
Only re-education camps can stop this kind of stuff. Oh wait, they're working on our kids now.:doh:

[themsu97]

remember this guys, because I have to, most of the people who post here are college students and think they know all the answers and are easily influenced by college professors...I remember being in college and thinking that I was going to change the world until I learned the way the "real" world is...
gun control would not have prevented this... but I do blame society because it has not taught kids today accountability... kids are given every opportunity to succeed and we are more concerned with how someone feels... this could be as simple as his girlfriend broke up with him... big deal and get over it... bad things happen all the time... at least Whitman knew something was wrong with him before he climbed the tower...
knee jerk reactions will get us nowhere until we finally fix the problem and make people accountable for their actions...
when Columbine happened, it was the jocks fault for bullying...kids bully all the time, not that it makes it right, but it is life, they bully from kindergarten all the way through life...
Keith, I applaud you for your stance but do not try to reinvent the wheel...
Bill of Rights guarantees us the right to bear arms...
I do not own a weapon but I can if I wanted and that is all I need...
hold the kid responsible, noone else

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by mistanice
1929: The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1911: Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

1938: Germany established gun control. From 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.


1935: China established gun control. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

The difference between being a CITIZEN and being a subject is the ability to defend yourself.
Dang, mistanice, you took the words right out of my mouth.

The three greatest mass murderers to ever walk the earth (Mao Tse-Tung, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler) did so in gun-controlled societies. It's also a proven fact that gun-controlled societies are often the most unstable around, and that many fear their government because they have no way to defend themselves. It's in this situation, where good citizens are left powerless to defend themselves and their families, that you see extremist rebel groups rise to power and replace previous regimes.

Sure, gun control has worked in a couple of countries (the UK), but for every solid example there's two bad ones. From dictatorships like Sudan to "republics" like Sierra Leone, China, and Liberia, you see it all the time.

What it boils down to is that slowly and surely, we're trading our freedom for security. We can't relate to Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death.") because we live in a bubble. As Americans, we only think of the here and now. We're horrible at mapping out an actual plan and instead tend to go with the best course of action that would solve the most problems right now.

America will fall to another government, either foreign or domestic, one of these days. Whether it's five or 500 years down the road, it will happen. And the sad thing is that we won't be able to defend ourselves from anything.

Ultimately, though, it's up to you to decide which direction you want to go. That's both the beauty and and fault of the republic in which we live.

[rholl]

In 1976 Washington DC adopted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the country. Since then the cities murder rate has risen 134%. In short, its the criminals not the guns causing the problems.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
you are right.. everyone should own guns so when one person pisses another off, they can settle the situation right there

IN case you did not know there are millions of gun owners that did not go on a shooting rampage yesterday. And the 20,000 different gun control laws already on the books did not seem to deter the shooter.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
Dang, mistanice, you took the words right out of my mouth.

The three greatest mass murderers to ever walk the earth (Mao Tse-Tung, Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler) did so in gun-controlled societies. It's also a proven fact that gun-controlled societies are often the most unstable around, and that many fear their government because they have no way to defend themselves. It's in this situation, where good citizens are left powerless to defend themselves and their families, that you see extremist rebel groups rise to power and replace previous regimes.

Sure, gun control has worked in a couple of countries (the UK), but for every solid example there's two bad ones. From dictatorships like Sudan to "republics" like Sierra Leone, China, and Liberia, you see it all the time.

What it boils down to is that slowly and surely, we're trading our freedom for security. We can't relate to Patrick Henry ("Give me liberty or give me death.") because we live in a bubble. As Americans, we only think of the here and now. We're horrible at mapping out an actual plan and instead tend to go with the best course of action that would solve the most problems right now.

America will fall to another government, either foreign or domestic, one of these days. Whether it's five or 500 years down the road, it will happen. And the sad thing is that we won't be able to defend ourselves from anything.

Ultimately, though, it's up to you to decide which direction you want to go. That's both the beauty and and fault of the republic in which we live.

Don't be fooled. Gun Control does not work in England. What does is the fact that an abnormally large part of the population is military or ex military and the average criminal over there knows it.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Don't be fooled. Gun Control does not work in England. What does is the fact that an abnormally large part of the population is military or ex military and the average criminal over there knows it.
It's working by my watch.

[UPanIN]

Well I suggest that we ban International students from coming here to school. That would have prevented it right. Or we can ban drunk drivers from driving... oh we already do that. And that works. Maybe we should ban broken hearts from ever happening.

The media will make this as political as possible and the anti-gun nuts will get to spray their venom as much as they like. The next few days and weeks CNN, MSNBC and their lib buddies will be all over gun control.

The truth is:
This was just one sick evil person who did this. You and I can't comprehend the evil that it took for this person to do what he did.
It makes no sense to us. And for us to say if we would only do this or do that it would prevent these terrible things from ever happening again. BS.

We should pray for the families that have lost loved ones and for the parents of this evil person.

And then try to raise our kids to respect life.

Leave the political stuff out of this.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
very cool uneducated post.. I like it..

people always argue how bad the world is now.. but then they hate change..

you can't make everyone happy, but we can at least try to make the world alittle safer for everyone and that is my main concern..

if i'm wrong for that... then shoot me

Hypothetical arguement.


Take a gun. Load it. Cock the hammer. Prepare it in every way for firing a round. Now place it on the table. Get back to me when it jumps up off the table by itself and goes on a killing rampage.

[smustangs]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Hypothetical arguement.


Take a gun. Load it. Cock the hammer. Prepare it in every way for firing a round. Now place it on the table. Get back to me when it jumps up off the table by itself and goes on a killing rampage.

wow couldnt have put it better myself :clap:

[mistanice]

ultimately our gov't can't govern free will.

[mistanice]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Hypothetical arguement.


Take a gun. Load it. Cock the hammer. Prepare it in every way for firing a round. Now place it on the table. Get back to me when it jumps up off the table by itself and goes on a killing rampage.

I guess it can only go off accidentally.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two Secret Service officers were injured on Tuesday after a gun held by another Secret Service officer accidentally fired inside the White House gate, according to a spokesman, Darrin Blackford.

news link (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-04-17T192809Z_01_N17445050_RTRUKOC_0_US-WHITEHOUSE-INCIDENT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mistanice
I guess it can only go off accidentally.

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Two Secret Service officers were injured on Tuesday after a gun held by another Secret Service officer accidentally fired inside the White House gate, according to a spokesman, Darrin Blackford.

news link (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2007-04-17T192809Z_01_N17445050_RTRUKOC_0_US-WHITEHOUSE-INCIDENT.xml&src=rss&rpc=22)

No. That is known in parlance as the AD or accidental discharge.
The officer made a mistake and had the safety off probably. I have heard of Police officers chambering a round with a Glock and then sitting in the squad car and having the gun go off because a pencil jammed in the holster and hit the trigger. But Glocks are the only guns with the extended trigger double pull safety. Which really means no safety. However if you look at it reasonabley that makes sense because you should always treat every gun like it has a chambered round and a finger on the trigger. Point is that it takes human intervention by way of a mistake or intent to make a gun work. Mind over matter.

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
No. That is known in parlance as the AD or accidental discharge.
The officer made a mistake and had the safety off probably. I have heard of Police officers chambering a round with a Glock and then sitting in the squad car and having the gun go off because a pencil jammed in the holster and hit the trigger. But Glocks are the only guns with the extended trigger double pull safety. Which really means no safety. However if you look at it reasonabley that makes sense because you should always treat every gun like it has a chambered round and a finger on the trigger. Point is that it takes human intervention by way of a mistake or intent to make a gun work. Mind over matter.
Amen.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
No. That is known in parlance as the AD or accidental discharge.
The officer made a mistake and had the safety off probably. I have heard of Police officers chambering a round with a Glock and then sitting in the squad car and having the gun go off because a pencil jammed in the holster and hit the trigger. But Glocks are the only guns with the extended trigger double pull safety. Which really means no safety. However if you look at it reasonabley that makes sense because you should always treat every gun like it has a chambered round and a finger on the trigger. Point is that it takes human intervention by way of a mistake or intent to make a gun work. Mind over matter.


so instead of taking away guns from people.. really we should just get everyone a psychiatrist??

[mustang68]

Originally posted by smustangs
The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%).

so should all this be illegal too?
Where in the world did this statistic on tobacco come from? I love statistics.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
so instead of taking away guns from people.. really we should just get everyone a psychiatrist??

No we should pass laws that make using guns in an illegal fashion criminal. Oh, we already do that. So then the only guys with guns will be criminals under your logic. And since they intend to do harm your law does nothing to protect the innocent.
The only thing that could possibly be stopped would be crimes of passion which are much more rare. But a well planned premeditated act will always be possible.

Guns are tools nothing more. Cars kill more people every year in this country x3 than guns. Yet you do not here anyone saying ban cars. Why? Because people are not afraid of cars. They are trained in their use and it is expected to be a part of your life. Guns are no different. Only your perception is.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
No we should pass laws that make using guns in an illegal fashion criminal. Oh, we already do that. So then the only guys with guns will be criminals under your logic. And since they intend to do harm your law does nothing to protect the innocent.
The only thing that could possibly be stopped would be crimes of passion which are much more rare. But a well planned premeditated act will always be possible.

Guns are tools nothing more. Cars kill more people every year in this country x3 than guns. Yet you do not here anyone saying ban cars. Why? Because people are not afraid of cars. They are trained in their use and it is expected to be a part of your life. Guns are no different. Only your perception is.


but if police are fighting to stop gun trade and guns are illegal, then there should be no guns to begin with.. and also why are brass knuckles, and switch blade knifes illegal?? these can be used in self defense



"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")

An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck.

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
but if police are fighting to stop gun trade and guns are illegal, then there should be no guns to begin with.. and also why are brass knuckles, and switch blade knifes illegal?? these can be used in self defense
.

Ok..do you REALLY think a ban on guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals? So if you ban guns..WHO has the power then? The criminal or the person?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Txbroadcaster
Ok..do you REALLY think a ban on guns will keep them out of the hands of criminals? So if you ban guns..WHO has the power then? The criminal or the person?

the police..

[Txbroadcaster]

Originally posted by Keith7
the police..


So the police will be able to stop a criminal with an illegal gun from killing anyone?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
but if police are fighting to stop gun trade and guns are illegal, then there should be no guns to begin with.. and also why are brass knuckles, and switch blade knifes illegal?? these can be used in self defense



"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")

An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck.

Yes but each of these studies has an agenda. The ones you mention are anti gun where as Lott is pro gun. Bottom linie is simple. Go back to the Arguement I posted earlier.
The gun on the table is still loaded and still has done nothing.
All your statistics prove is that a criminal is willing to use a gun poorly while it does not include those crimes that were stopped because a gun was used properly.
When the gun on the table jumps up by itself and goes on a rampage, I will be in favor of banning them.

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7
but if police are fighting to stop gun trade and guns are illegal, then there should be no guns to begin with.. and also why are brass knuckles, and switch blade knifes illegal?? these can be used in self defense



"People kill with knifes, too. Do you want to ban knifes?" From Dr. Roth's study: The overall fatality rate in gun robberies is an estimated 4 per 1,000--about 3 times the rate for knife robberies, 10 times the rate for robberies with other weapons, and 20 times the rate for robberies by unarmed offenders. (Cook, Philip J., "Robbery Violence," Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78-2, (1987):357-376.) For assaults, a crime which includes threats, the most widely cited estimate of the fatality rate is derived from a 1968 analysis of assaults and homicides committed in Chicago. The study, prepared for the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, reported that gun attacks kill 12.2 percent of their intended victims. This is about 5 times as often as in attacks with knives, the second most deadly weapon used in violent crimes.(Newton, G.D., and F.E. Zimring, Firearms and Violence in American Life: A Staff Report Submitted to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, Washington, D.C.: National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969.) With one exception, more recent studies have generally concluded that death was at least twice as likely in gun assaults as in knife assaults. (The exception is Kleck and McElrath, "The Effects of Weaponry on Human Violence.")

An offshoot of this argument is the old classic "cars kill more people than guns, but we don't ban cars." The response to this irrelevant argument is that cars have other usage, whereas guns basically just kill, or threaten to kill. Their one potentially valid use, self-defense, is undercut by the statistics by Kellerman and Zimring previously cited, as well as fatal weaknesses in the arguments of Lott and Kleck.

So what you are saying is you are afraid of the gun not the person holding the gun, or driving the car, or holding the knfe....
The inate fear of the inanimate object is what drives the effort to ban guns. You want to control that because there is no control of a cowardly criminal mind before they commit these atrocities.

The gun control approach is backwards and therefore illogical, unworkable and unconstitutional.

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Yes but each of these studies has an agenda. The ones you mention are anti gun where as Lott is pro gun. Bottom linie is simple. Go back to the Arguement I posted earlier.
The gun on the table is still loaded and still has done nothing.
All your statistics prove is that a criminal is willing to use a gun poorly while it does not include those crimes that were stopped because a gun was used properly.
When the gun on the table jumps up by itself and goes on a rampage, I will be in favor of banning them.

if the gun wasn't on the table to begin with, it would never even have a chance of killing anyone.. its just that simple.. if anything you just helped solidify my arguement

[Keith7]

I love how everyone uses the same arguement "killers are gonna kill no matter what, we might as well keep guns around to help them"

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7
if the gun wasn't on the table to begin with, it would never even have a chance of killing anyone.. its just that simple.. if anything you just helped solidify my arguement

Nope, but you just solidified mine. Guns do exist, so your belief that it can kill without an outside influence or human using it as a tool, shows an irrational emotional fear of an impossibility.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
I love how everyone uses the same arguement "killers are gonna kill no matter what, we might as well keep guns around to help them"

That is your invalid perception. I live in the country. In my house they are used for snakes, coyotes, rabid skunks first. I have had a gun in my hand since I was 7. And I have never killed anyone with a gun. I am rated expert by NRA standards with a hand gun and have my Marksmans badge from the military with a rifle.
I usually hit the target in my sights and yet I have never killed anyone. Explain to me why my gun should be taken away. What have I ever done to anyone to provoke such a response?

[Keith7]

Originally posted by Reds fan
Nope, but you just solidified mine. Guns do exist, so your belief that it can kill without an outside influence or human using it as a tool, shows an irrational emotional fear of an impossibility.

did u even read my post!? I didn't say the gun jumped off the table?? have u been drinking already? its not even 5 yet

[Keith7]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Explain to me why my gun should be taken away. What have I ever done to anyone to provoke such a response?

for you and your families safety...

tell me this.. why should a pissed of 20 year old be allowed to buy a gun??

let me guess to go and kill snakes and rabid skunks huh??

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
if the gun wasn't on the table to begin with, it would never even have a chance of killing anyone.. its just that simple.. if anything you just helped solidify my arguement


No you have it backwards. If no one was there to pick up the gun there would be no issue. The perp is always the hand holding the gun. It is like the old arguement, "If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, is there a sound?"
If a gun is lying on the table and no one is around to use it, will it go off?

You are irrational to the point of being a waste of time. Your fear of rocks and knives and guns means that you have no frame of reference to make a sound judgement.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
for you and your families safety...

tell me this.. why should a pissed of 20 year old be allowed to buy a gun??

let me guess to go and kill snakes and rabid skunks huh??

But you just made the point. He used it illegally. I have not. Are
you going to arrest me for doing nothing?

[Jason1725]

Lets just pass a law that everyone should be kept in Government institutions guarded by the military and police so they can all keep us safe from each other. Because the government is so efficient and readily able to protect us.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Keith7
for you and your families safety...

tell me this.. why should a pissed of 20 year old be allowed to buy a gun??

let me guess to go and kill snakes and rabid skunks huh??

Besides, I believe in a multi-layered defense. I have two boxers in the house that will tear off the thugs leg and beat him with it while I unload my double ot buckshot 12 gage into his theiving hide.

[Gobbla2001]

Guns don't kill people, SUVS kill people...

---

"And he stopped off in Tushka at that "Pop's Knife and Gun" place
Bought a SKS rifle and a couple a full cases of that steel core ammo
With the berdan primers from some East bloc nation that no longer needs 'em
And a Desert Eagle that's one great big ol' pistol
I mean .50 caliber made by badass Hebrews
And some surplus tracers for that old BAR of Slayton's
Soon as it gets dark we're gonna have us a time
We're gonna have us a time" -James McMurtry

[sahen]

keith you should really take ur argument elsewhere....the crowd of people that live and breath texas 3a football is the same crowd that is proud NRA card carrying members (in general, maybe not every single one).....its obvious here no one is going to convince you of anything and u sure as heck arent going to convince us any other way....when trying to change views go to the people in the middle, the ones sitting on either side rnt gonna change what they believe...

[Jason1725]

"This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. " Benjamin Franklin

[Gobbla2001]

what I've learned from this thread:

If we take guns, more and more people will die because of snake bites etc...

So basically people should have the right to protect themselves...

How many people murder with knives? huh? serial killers have done it... no more knives?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by sahen
keith you should really take ur argument elsewhere....the crowd of people that live and breath texas 3a football is the same crowd that is proud NRA card carrying members (in general, maybe not every single one).....its obvious here no one is going to convince you of anything and u sure as heck arent going to convince us any other way....when trying to change views go to the people in the middle, the ones sitting on either side rnt gonna change what they believe...

On the contrary, I would listen to any valid arguement. But the gun haters all approach the arguement from fear. YOu always see it after some major issue like VT. They are all afraid of being the victim. That in itself invalidates their arguements because you cannot be rational when you are really afraid.

I approach the arguement from the other side. If the silly SOB happens to be in my neighborhood to try this, he will get a double tap as soon as I see him.

[Darren]

Taking the guns is not the solution.... (maybe the assault rifles)

Better upbringing is the solution.

I can tell you that if you take the guns away the law abiding citizens won't have them and the murders, theif and others will.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Darren
Taking the guns is not the solution.... (maybe the assault rifles)

Better upbringing is the solution.

I can tell you that if you take the guns away the law abiding citizens won't have them and the murders, theif and others will.

We have no assault rifles. The true assault rifle has automatic mode such as the military uses. Besides, strict interpretation of the 2nd might indicate that the average joe has access to the standard infantry weapons to "better prepare him for the militia."
Which would include assault rifles, grenades, etc. A federal district judge cited this in ruling in San Angelo a couple of years ago.

[Jason1725]

"As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people."
- Jeff Snyder

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by Keith7
did u even read my post!? I didn't say the gun jumped off the table?? have u been drinking already? its not even 5 yet

Yes, Keith I read your post, please try to control your emotions, I know you are well intentioned. Just not using a logical approach.

You said "it would never even have a chance of killing anyone.. its just that simple..". With that statement your belief that "it", the gun, could kill a person shows your irrational thought pattern.

There's got to be someone there to pull the trigger or knock it off the table. Guns, knives, cars, screwdrivers do exist and all can be used to kill or injure, but somebody's got to use that tool for that to happen, go after those somebodies not the tools.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by Darren


I can tell you that if you take the guns away the law abiding citizens won't have them and the murders, theif and others will.

there is too much truth there, too much logic, that cannot be used in this discussion because it gives the pro-gun folks an unfair advantage, so it is mostly ignored...

[pirate4state]

round and round what comes around goes around

:crazy1:

Guns are good. Crazy people with guns - not so good.

[Darren]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
We have no assault rifles. The true assault rifle has automatic mode such as the military uses. Besides, strict interpretation of the 2nd might indicate that the average joe has access to the standard infantry weapons to "better prepare him for the militia."
Which would include assault rifles, grenades, etc. A federal district judge cited this in ruling in San Angelo a couple of years ago.

I think you knew what I meant but how about this.....

No more semi-auto SKS or Ak's or what every else you can go buy for 150.00 get a 50 round clip for and very easily modify to a fully automatic assault rifle. The only practical use I have found for these is to use for hog hunting.

Is that more to you liking BillyrayCyrus

[Jason1725]

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
Thomas Jefferson

This is what happened yesterday

[injuredinmelee]

Originally posted by Keith7
very cool uneducated post.. I like it..

people always argue how bad the world is now.. but then they hate change..

you can't make everyone happy, but we can at least try to make the world alittle safer for everyone and that is my main concern..

if i'm wrong for that... then shoot me

Is it now? I was young, dumb, and full of.. well you know too just like you. Then i hit the real world and started thinking for myself.

[BILLYFRED0000]

One last

HYPOTHETICAL ARGUEMENT.

Since all men are equipped for rape they should be rounded up and castrated because they are all potential rapists.

(my 22 year daughter came up with this in social studies when she was a sophomore in hs. The coach teaching the class was a gun hater. Needless to say he had no ready reply to this one).

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
One last

HYPOTHETICAL ARGUEMENT.

Since all men are equipped for rape they should be rounded up and castrated because they are all potential rapists.

(my 22 year daughter came up with this in social studies when she was a sophomore in hs. The coach teaching the class was a gun hater. Needless to say he had no ready reply to this one).


LOL - I just imagined a huge "groan" from all the male posters on this board

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Darren
I think you knew what I meant but how about this.....

No more semi-auto SKS or Ak's or what every else you can go buy for 150.00 get a 50 round clip for and very easily modify to a fully automatic assault rifle. The only practical use I have found for these is to use for hog hunting.

Is that more to you liking BillyrayCyrus

No, I like them becuse you can hunt anything that runs in herds.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by pirate4state
LOL - I just imagined a huge "groan" from all the male posters on this board

Me too. But her logic is undeniable. It is the same logic used for guns. The "potential for harm".

[Reds fan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
One last

HYPOTHETICAL ARGUEMENT.

Since all men are equipped for rape they should be rounded up and castrated because they are all potential rapists.

(my 22 year daughter came up with this in social studies when she was a sophomore in hs. The coach teaching the class was a gun hater. Needless to say he had no ready reply to this one).

:clap: :clap: :clap:

And women are all equiped to be prostitutes but most women are not!

[Darren]

Originally posted by Reds fan
:clap: :clap: :clap:

And women are all equiped to be prostitutes but most women are not!

I think that you guys are streching it a bit now. It's like Michael Moore talking about sueing bullet makers because they kill people.

I think you have to limit your thoughts to who the blame ultimately falls upon.

We didn't blame the airplanes for 9/11 did we?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Darren
I think that you guys are streching it a bit now. It's like Michael Moore talking about sueing bullet makers because they kill people.

I think you have to limit your thoughts to who the blame ultimately falls upon.

We didn't blame the airplanes for 9/11 did we?

I agree here as well. Now if the woman was a prostitute with a deadly communicable disease and she chose to continue her profession, I think you could consinder her a loaded gun with intent to harm. But until she did something, she would not have committed that crime. Just tell Tom Cruise to check the Minority
Report.

[Buccaneer]

Originally posted by Jason1725
"As the Founding Fathers knew well, a government that does not trust its honest, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens with the means of self-defense is not itself worthy of trust. Laws disarming honest citizens proclaim that the government is the master, not the servant, of the people."
- Jeff Snyder

I had no idea who Jeff Snyder was but I was sure he was not one of the Founding Fathers. I believe he is an author and proponent of gun ownership. Another Snyder quote:

Quote from Jeff Snyder


"But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. ... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."

[Buccaneer]

A Buccaneer quote borrowed from the 70's :

"You can have my gun when you pry my dead,
cold fingers from the barrel."

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Buccaneer
I had no idea who Jeff Snyder was but I was sure he was not one of the Founding Fathers. I believe he is an author and proponent of gun ownership. Another Snyder quote:

Quote from Jeff Snyder


"But to ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow. ... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding."
.
I think I see what this guy Snyder is saying. We need bigger guns for law-abiding citizens?:clap:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
the police..
.
Maybe if there was a policeman in every household.:thinking:

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Keith7
if the gun wasn't on the table to begin with, it would never even have a chance of killing anyone.. its just that simple.. if anything you just helped solidify my arguement
.
Keith, can you not see that you have personified a GUN into something besides an inanimate object? THE GUN has no power to do anything. Why can you not see that? It's a tool, nothing more.
Our country was built on the grounds that the government can't take away our right to own a gun. That's why they made this point The 2nd Amendment... not the 6th or 10th... the frikkin 2nd one.
.
Keith, folks here are saying that you just might have an unfounded fear of guns. The gun isn't alive. It can't do anything, heck it can't even load itself...
I sympathize with you, though. I grew up in a household with no guns. I was taught to fear them, but my whole life I knew that my fear was ungrounded. It took shooting some beer cans with some friends to realize that my suspicions on guns were right. They can't hurt you. Only someone with with an intention to hurt you can actually hurt you.:)

[mistanice]

Is it true that most crimes with guns are committed by lower-class people? It seems to me that guns just give power to the powerless, and is the most popular mode of murder of the higher classes. Maybe we should just do away with the lower class?

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Keith, can you not see that you have personified a GUN into something besides an inanimate object? THE GUN has no power to do anything. Why can you not see that? It's a tool, nothing more.
Our country was built on the grounds that the government can't take away our right to own a gun. That's why they made this point The 2nd Amendment... not the 6th or 10th... the frikkin 2nd one.
.
Keith, folks here are saying that you just might have an unfounded fear of guns. The gun isn't alive. It can't do anything, heck it can't even load itself...
I sympathize with you, though. I grew up in a household with no guns. I was taught to fear them, but my whole life I knew that my fear was ungrounded. It took shooting some beer cans with some friends to realize that my suspicions on guns were right. They can't hurt you. Only someone with with an intention to hurt you can actually hurt you.:)

You hit on something here. Guns can be fun. He earlier said that the cars ban arguement was because cars had other uses. Guns were designed to kill. Yes and that is correct. Kill the bad guy. Kill supper. Kill the enemy. Kill the beer can. Kill the varmint. Kill
time. Kill any paper target you can create. Then there are the competitions in which skill with a gun is calculated and competed.
The biatholon in the Olympics for crying out loud. YOu will find that people like keith are invested in fear and defeat. They are afraid of the gun and afraid of anyone with a gun.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mistanice
Is it true that most crimes with guns are committed by lower-class people? It seems to me that guns just give power to the powerless, and is the most popular mode of murder of the higher classes. Maybe we should just do away with the lower class?

That is just because the higher class can afford to hire someone.

[mistanice]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
That is just because the higher class can afford to hire someone.

or use poisoning and stage hit-and-run car deaths.

[mistanice]

As Shakespeare has it, "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, makes ill deeds done." in support of Keith :D

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by mistanice
As Shakespeare has it, "How oft the sight of means to do ill deeds, makes ill deeds done." in support of Keith :D

Yes,

"To be or not to be, that is the question.
Whether tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous
fortune,
Or sleep, perchance to dream.

Aye, that's the rub....."

[BILLYFRED0000]

Could you imagine a world without arms except for those in charge?


DENNIS: What I object to is that you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I am king!
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. And how d'you get that, eh? By exploiting
the workers! By 'anging on to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates
the economic and social differences in our society. If there's ever going
to be any progress with the--
WOMAN: Dennis, there's some lovely filth down here. Oh! How d'you do?
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Who's
castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. We are all Britons, and I am your king.
WOMAN: I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self- perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
WOMAN: Oh, there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That's what it's all about. If only people would hear of--
ARTHUR: Please, please good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No one lives there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don't have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We're an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in
turns to act as a sort of executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decision of that officer have to be ratified at a special bi-weekly meeting--
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs,--
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: But by a two-thirds majority in the case of more major--
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh? Who does he think he is? Heh.
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don't vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, how did you become king then?
ARTHUR: The Lady of the Lake,...
[angels sing]
...her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from
the bosom of the water signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was
to carry Excalibur.
[singing stops]
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen, strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well, but you can't expect to wield supreme executive power just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went 'round saying I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me, they'd put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up, will you. Shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help, help! I'm being repressed!
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a give-away. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That's what I'm on about. Did you see him repressing me? You saw it, didn't you?

[Ingleside Fan]

I can't believe that people would give up their constitutional rights so easy. If we give up our weapons then the next step in socialism or communism. Or maybe an Islamic state that there can only be one religion and if you don't believe you die. Our freedom is here because we have the right to own weapons. With out them we would have been taken over along time ago.

Wake up!

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Ingleside Fan
I can't believe that people would give up their constitutional rights so easy. If we give up our weapons then the next step in socialism or communism. Or maybe an Islamic state that there can only be one religion and if you don't believe you die. Our freedom is here because we have the right to own weapons. With out them we would have been taken over along time ago.

Wake up!

We have been for years. But I sense a reversal on the horizon.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
We have been for years. But I sense a reversal on the horizon.
.
Perseverance my friend. Never forget we still have rights. The opposition won't stop so we can't either.:cool: :) :nerd:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Perseverance my friend. Never forget we still have rights. The opposition won't stop so we can't either.:cool: :) :nerd:

I do have an insight into this. This is not just liberal vs conservative. It is also city vs rural. And the mindset that goes with it. City services and programs vs rural take care of it myself cause there is no one else to get the job done. And one more interesting note. Police are not there to protect us. Only enforce the law. Several court cases have stated this before. The one that sticks out in my mind is one where two women were raped and held over night. The police were called that night but did not come by till the next day. The court ruled in a suit that they were not enjoined to protect your lives. Just enforce the law.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
I do have an insight into this. This is not just liberal vs conservative. It is also city vs rural. And the mindset that goes with it. City services and programs vs rural take care of it myself cause there is no one else to get the job done. And one more interesting note. Police are not there to protect us. Only enforce the law. Several court cases have stated this before. The one that sticks out in my mind is one where two women were raped and held over night. The police were called that night but did not come by till the next day. The court ruled in a suit that they were not enjoined to protect your lives. Just enforce the law.
.
I guess your perspective is valid. You guys aren't very "rural" anymore.:D
.
Oh Lord, I'm very familiar with this debate and friends have called me to get the "Straight, white guys" view on this debate more than once. This is also probably the downlow's 3rd round on this debate.:D
And BILLYFRED0000? I just had another liberal friend who used to spout Anti-Bush crap left and right tell me Friday night, "Man, you're right about that stuff." He used to listen to Airhead America and now he is addicted to Rush and Sean.:D He doesn't agree with everything I(or Talk radio) say and rightfully he shouldn't, but at least now he is more educated and balanced. He says he sleeps better each night knowing what he does now. He's gonna buy a .380 soon just in case(never shot a gun before either, so he asked me for a decent starter pistol, I mentioned .22 but he wanted bigger). Man, I need to turn this guy on to the downlow. He would have some fun here.:D :) :clap:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by injuredinmelee
history of genocide and oppression. have you taken a look at our history. while I won't justify iran having nukes, some examples are better than others

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
have you taken a look at our history. while I won't justify iran having nukes, some examples are better than others

Well I like Iran since they have a proven track record against the US such as the hostage situation and the current training of shiite
terrorists to construct bombs to go thru our armor. Since they also pledge to wipe Israel off the map I would say they are a threat.

[DDBooger]

by the way I have .38 special, 9mm, 30-6, 357. locked away! i believe we should own guns. but if everyone was able to carry one anywhere, i believe we'd have situations that get mishandled quickly. i'd prefer one cool head then 50 licensed hot heads looking for a loose description of a killer. there are pluses and minuses to the argument. guns don't belong on campus'. this situation is terrible but perhaps security if only 1 person is necessary in all buildings. don't have an answer, but arming everyone, im sure even authorities will agree is just as dangerous

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
have you taken a look at our history. while I won't justify iran having nukes, some examples are better than others
.
I still say we need much better gun control in this country. If we all had better aim, there'd be fewer criminals.:clap:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I still say we need much better gun control in this country. If we all had better aim, there'd be fewer criminals.:clap:

Gun Control definition.

Never missing your target.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Well I like Iran since they have a proven track record against the US such as the hostage situation and the current training of shiite
terrorists to construct bombs to go thru our armor. Since they also pledge to wipe Israel off the map I would say they are a threat. are you talking historical or generally recent occurences because they are not one in the same. and their track record has to do with our support of corrupt authoritarians during the cold war. we chose the lesser of two evils so can't really bash us there. the soviets were a larger threat and the rest of the world were puppets

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I still say we need much better gun control in this country. If we all had better aim, there'd be fewer criminals.:clap: and civilians as a result of overzealous imbeciles with licenses. if a license was all you needed for an assurance we'd have no car wrecks huh? like i said, a few with guns is preferable to a mini mob running around armed

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Gun Control definition.

Never missing your target. friendly fire=hitting the wrong target

[whtfbplaya]

Originally posted by Keith7
if the gun wasn't on the table to begin with, it would never even have a chance of killing anyone.. its just that simple.. if anything you just helped solidify my arguement

Keith you have no arguement.

[DDBooger]

i don't believe in eliminating guns, hell I have a 38 special, 9, 357, 30-6, and a 45. handed down from my pops. now if i catch someone in my house, they're a dead mother******! but I don't like the idea of a bunch of mini-charles bronsons runnin around. lol carrying a handgun should be a difficult license to get and should require extensive training in various aspects. 1 good shooter is better then 50 poorly licensed "heros"

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
are you talking historical or generally recent occurences because they are not one in the same. and their track record has to do with our support of corrupt authoritarians during the cold war. we chose the lesser of two evils so can't really bash us there. the soviets were a larger threat and the rest of the world were puppets

That is not strictly true in Iran's case. What happened there was basically that we supported democracy but the religious fanatics claimed control and took it from the people. If you study the issues of the shia and their belief system you would understand that they are more dangerous than anyone except perhaps the Wahabi. Fortunately for us, the Saudi's are not true Wahabei.
Rather, they created a pact with the Wahabi clerics in which they would support the Wahabi if the Wahabi would maintain them in power, which explains the current inability of them to steer any clear direction. But the Ruling Council of the Sharia in Iran are religious fanatics and it is they who run the country and not the government. It has nothing at all to do with Cold War politics.
Venezuela is however an example of what you mean.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
That is not strictly true in Iran's case. What happened there was basically that we supported democracy but the religious fanatics claimed control and took it from the people. If you study the issues of the shia and their belief system you would understand that they are more dangerous than anyone except perhaps the Wahabi. Fortunately for us, the Saudi's are not true Wahabei.
Rather, they created a pact with the Wahabi clerics in which they would support the Wahabi if the Wahabi would maintain them in power, which explains the current inability of them to steer any clear direction. But the Ruling Council of the Sharia in Iran are religious fanatics and it is they who run the country and not the government. It has nothing at all to do with Cold War politics.
Venezuela is however an example of what you mean. hence why I asked historical or recent, you got that i hope? lol and if you believe the CIA installed democracy or supported it in those countries of the middle east and central america I think you should check your sources. a facade of it maybe but never true democracy. what do you get with democracy in the middle east. "palestine" in central america "socialist and communist leaders" who use anti-american slogan to further their cause. hence venezuela, ecuador and bolivia. capitalism has not been nice to these countries. corruption has created a lack of faith in it! as far as Iran, the religious offered a better scenario, hence lack of opposition. patience may work with iran if the nukes AREN'T built, their youth are identifying with the west more and more. it is a matter oftime before they tear loose of the stagnant way of life the religious there espouse

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
hence why I asked historical or recent, you got that i hope? lol and if you believe the CIA installed democracy or supported it in those countries of the middle east and central america I think you should check your sources. a facade of it maybe but never true democracy. what do you get with democracy in the middle east. "palestine" in central america "socialist and communist leaders" who use anti-american slogan to further their cause. hence venezuela, ecuador and bolivia. capitalism has not been nice to these countries. corruption has created a lack of faith in it!

Historically, the Muslims ran the middle east at the edge of the sword and continue to do so. The Iranians are a special case because Shi'ites are a small minority that happens to believe in a different set of Caliphs than the rest of the Islamic faith. Hence they are more fanatical such as the Taliban. When the Shah was given power the country did well. But over the centuries it has always been the religious mullahs who controlled the wealth and kept the population under their control by threat of death. When religion and politics ride in the same cart and breaking of law becomes sin, then the people live in complete and utter fear. For they all know they are sinners. Is this the history you were referring too?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
Historically, the Muslims ran the middle east at the edge of the sword and continue to do so. The Iranians are a special case because Shi'ites are a small minority that happens to believe in a different set of Caliphs than the rest of the Islamic faith. Hence they are more fanatical such as the Taliban. When the Shah was given power the country did well. But over the centuries it has always been the religious mullahs who controlled the wealth and kept the population under their control by threat of death. When religion and politics ride in the same cart and breaking of law becomes sin, then the people live in complete and utter fear. For they all know they are sinners. Is this the history you were referring too? Taliban are sunni, hence relationship with al queda. and you are right about the mullahs. and if you know your muslim teachings indoctrinating their religion into politics is mandatory. the relationship is dialectical.

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Taliban are sunni, hence relationship with al queda. and you are right about the mullahs. and if you know your muslim teachings indoctrinating their religion into politics is mandatory. the relationship is dialectical.

Correct, which means that Cold War politics has nothing to do with the current political situation. And yes I knew the Taliban were sunni. I was using them for a connection with which the mullahs of Iran cling to power. It is that type of mindless ferocious tenacity with which they rule. The people have no choice but to follow or die.

[DDBooger]

sure it does when injured suggested their history in comparison to ours! and while the cold war is a point in time, it has had a large influence on the world today. many scars are left from the West-East puppetry

[DU_stud04]

Originally posted by Keith7
First let me explain part of why i'm biased..

I was shot at once while riding with a friend and a bullet went thru my window and out the other side.. not once did I think " wow I wish I had a gun so I could shoot back".. NO the whole time I was thinking "wow how did this 19 year old crack head get a gun".. then come to find out, he got it legally..

so ya everyone should have guns.. it would fix america's problems :rolleyes: your not the only one to get shot at...get over it.

[DDBooger]

talk about going off on a tangent. back to guns. i don't think we should ban em! while i think its fun listening to someone justify a 50 cal sniper rifle, hey as long as im not getting shot at! :)

[DU_stud04]

Originally posted by Keith7
its also in the constitution that only white male land owners can vote...

Times change and so should our laws and amendments.. and this one is one that needs to go.. so are you stating that women,blacks,mexicans, indians, chinese, japanese.... are causing all of this change

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by DU_stud04
so are you stating that women,blacks,mexicans, indians, chinese, japanese.... are causing all of this change don't think thats what he meant at all. i don't agree with him, but his point being that laws written then can be inapplicable today. hence ONLY white male landowners. how can gun ownership be accepted and white male landowners be rejected. AGAiN, don't agree with him on gun control, but I got his point

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
sure it does when injured suggested their history in comparison to ours! and while the cold war is a point in time, it has had a large influence on the world today. many scars are left from the West-East puppetry

True, there are many scars. But almost none fall in the middle east comparatively speaking. The sheiks were always willing to sell their oil to whomever gave them the best deal. And we nor the Warsaw pact could really do anything too overt for fear of causing a confrontation. And even when we tried the mullahs still ran the country.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
and civilians as a result of overzealous imbeciles with licenses. if a license was all you needed for an assurance we'd have no car wrecks huh? like i said, a few with guns is preferable to a mini mob running around armed
.
Who in heck is saying we want tons of fools running around in mobs toting guns? In today's climate it would never happen anyway. But maybe it's not a bad idea if 1 in 50 were licensed to carry in this country.
.
Have some faith in your fellow man boog because guess what? The very vast majority of folks out there are just like you and me.
Criminals are criminals, period; and maybe they deserve what they get if they so choose to invade a house that is armed. I'd bet crime would go waaaay down if more folks chose to own guns, instead of being afraid of them.:)

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
True, there are many scars. But almost none fall in the middle east comparatively speaking. The sheiks were always willing to sell their oil to whomever gave them the best deal. And we nor the Warsaw pact could really do anything too overt for fear of causing a confrontation. And even when we tried the mullahs still ran the country.
.
Most experts agree Jimmy Carter got us in our current mess with radical Islamic fascists running things in Iran for the last 27 years.:doh:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
True, there are many scars. But almost none fall in the middle east comparatively speaking. dude are you serious!!!! people have always been under the misconception that cuban missile crisis was the closest we came to nuclear war! wrong!!! the suez coming under israeli control in 67 was. nuclear subs playing around U.S. naval fleet. the soviets basically gave an ultimatum. the whole iran/iraq conflict had tremendouse cold war undertones. what kind of machinery do you think the iraqi's used. I know we didn't invent any T-72s. while afghanistan is not considered middle east, the middle east congregated their to fight the soviets. and no other than who led these arab insurgents!! i'll give ya a clue, we helped him then! and we are looking for him now! sorry bud, we'll chalk this up as agree to disagree

[SintonFan]

Have more control over your guns!!!
Heck buy 20, but have great control over them.:)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
Who in heck is saying we want tons of fools running around in mobs toting guns? In today's climate it would never happen anyway. But maybe it's not a bad idea if 1 in 50 were licensed to carry in this country.
.
Have some faith in your fellow man boog because guess what? The very vast majority of folks out there are just like you and me.
Criminals are criminals, period; and maybe they deserve what they get if they so choose to invade a house that is armed. I'd bet crime would go waaaay down if more folks chose to own guns, instead of being afraid of them.:) true but it takes just one to do what happened in VT. now statistically speaking, it could have easily have been a licensed owner. Criminals are criminals yes, but not all have the same origins or else you wouldn't read about doctors killing wives, lawyers lying(lol), boyscout leaders molesting and politicians breaking the law. criminals are criminals and they are everywhere. again, im for gun ownership, but not for masses carrying them in public

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
Have more control over your guns!!!
Heck buy 20, but have great control over them.:) mine are safely locked away

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
true but it takes just one to do what happened in VT. now statistically speaking, it could have easily have been a licensed owner. Criminals are criminals yes, but not all have the same origins or else you wouldn't read about doctors killing wives, lawyers lying(lol), boyscout leaders molesting and politicians breaking the law. criminals are criminals and they are everywhere. again, im for gun ownership, but not for masses carrying them in public
.
So...
are you for restricting our current rights to own or what?
What do you believe in?
Understand this is all for debate so I won't jump on you.:)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
So...
are you for restricting our current rights to own or what?
What do you believe in?
Understand this is all for debate so I won't jump on you.:) wouldn't be afraid if ya did! lol SF i've stated it over and over in this thread. im for having em. i have 5 myself, but increasing the amount of them on the streets even legally to me is insane and reasoning behind our govt. prosecuting vigilante acts, mob etc. like i said, i prefer fewer well trained individuals carrying a weapon then a bunch of easily trained mini bronsons. as i mentioned earlier. if a license guaranteed safety would we have car wrecks? moderation is my opinion.

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by DDBooger
mine are safely locked away
.
I have two loaded ones in hidden false compartments in the house(among my guns).
My son and wife knows where they are. I have taken my son, when he was ready, to fire away at the age of 6. He enjoyed it to no end and has a very healthy respect for these things.
My daughter has been around us at "fun shoots" but she is not ready to shoot herself. I'm not gonna press her and she'll let us know when she is ready. I do believe that as a parent I have a responsibility to my children to teach them not only right and wrong but also responsible gun ownership.:)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
I have two loaded ones in hidden false compartments in the house(among my guns).
My son and wife knows where they are. I have taken my son, when he was ready, to fire away at the age of 6. He enjoyed it to no end and has a very healthy respect for these things.
My daughter has been around us at "fun shoots" but she is not ready to shoot herself. I'm not gonna press her and she'll let us know when she is ready. I do believe that as a parent I have a responsibility to my children to teach them not only right and wrong but also responsible gun ownership.:) i wish more fathers were around to teach this to inner city youth(5th wardy) and wealthy suburbs(columbine etc).

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by DDBooger
dude are you serious!!!! people have always been under the misconception that cuban missile crisis was the closest we came to nuclear war! wrong!!! the suez coming under israeli control in 67 was. nuclear subs playing around U.S. naval fleet. the soviets basically gave an ultimatum. the whole iran/iraq conflict had tremendouse cold war undertones. what kind of machinery do you think the iraqi's used. I know we didn't invent any T-72s. while afghanistan is not considered middle east, the middle east congregated their to fight the soviets. and no other than who led these arab insurgents!! i'll give ya a clue, we helped him then! and we are looking for him now! sorry bud, we'll chalk this up as agree to disagree

Sorry, I was referring strictly to the gulf region. All the Israeli stuff I put under a continuation of Hitler's destroy the Jews theme
that was carried over into Russia and carried out till Breshnev was booted out. While it is technically middle east, the Russians were simply a middle man in the weapons deals that allowed Egypt and Syria to almost destroy themselves. That the Hardliners in Russia were continuing to attempt their anti-semitism was icing on the cake and the intent rather than to gain control with Russian proxies. Whomever wound up in control would not have held Russian hands like Israel held ours.

[BILLYFRED0000]

And if you will remember, the Russians were always selling arms to raise hard currency. They could not produce hard money at all.
The suez issue was merely an excuse so the arabs could attempt to wipe Israel off the map. They still have the same arguement and issues today. The Israeli's predicament was a failure of the UN in the first place. The Russians and arabs were using it for means of their own. We just sided with the Israeli's to thwart Russia. We gave weapons to Iraq also along with alot of European nations. And while this had cold war implications, it was more about helping people there fight our enemies as in afghanistan. We supplied some weapons and helped but it was
the afghans courage and tenacity that held them. The Russians made the mistake of subduing in force before they realized that it would never work. Afghan for all intents and purposes is just a training ground for terrorists and war lords.

[BILLYFRED0000]

And while the cold war roiled around it, it was still about Islam and the Zionists with the mullahs turning things to whatever advantage we would give them all the while intending to retake their lands when the issues were settled. It was never going to hold in cold war strategy because they were Muslims and we were Infidels.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Keith7
maybe it should be illegal, it is alot worse than some other drugs.. but thats another topic..

but ya thats why we have restrictions on who can drink to help prvent that kinda stuff.. to get a gun in virginia, you only have to be a resident

You're a history buff, right? It WAS illegal, what happened?

[sinton66]

Here's another thought for you, Keith. There is no way on earth to shut down the black market. A black market would NOT be created if guns were outlawed in the US. It already exists worldwide. There are over 100 nations on this planet that manufacture and dispense weaponry. Even the police you are fond of expecting perfection from have been known to contribute to the black market effort. Officers placed in charge of destroying confiscated weapons have instead sold them on the black market(Trust me on this). Where there is a buck to be made, someone will find a way.

I don't pretend to have all the answers, but I will tell you this. The way this world is headed (not just the US) there may come a day when the ONLY thing worth having is a gun. It could mean the difference between YOUR life and death. I've owned guns all my life. My children grew up with them in my home within easy reach of any of us. No one has been shot by accident or on purpose in my home. No one has even pointed a gun at anyone in my home even just "playing around". I know DOZENS of people who can say the same. So tell me Keith, is this by accident? Were we just "lucky"? Or is it because I took the trouble to teach EVERYONE in my household about guns, how dangerous they can be, what they were designed for, and how to use them properly?

There are PLENTY of responsible people in this country, and I don't sweat any of them having guns.

(And, BTW, Columbine was 8 years ago, not 20.)

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
And if you will remember, the Russians were always selling arms to raise hard currency. They could not produce hard money at all.
The suez issue was merely an excuse so the arabs could attempt to wipe Israel off the map. They still have the same arguement and issues today. The Israeli's predicament was a failure of the UN in the first place. The Russians and arabs were using it for means of their own. We just sided with the Israeli's to thwart Russia. We gave weapons to Iraq also along with alot of European nations. And while this had cold war implications, it was more about helping people there fight our enemies as in afghanistan. We supplied some weapons and helped but it was
the afghans courage and tenacity that held them. The Russians made the mistake of subduing in force before they realized that it would never work. Afghan for all intents and purposes is just a training ground for terrorists and war lords. lol never the less the involvement of both russia and us in middle eastern affairs is my point, not logic, not aims, not by proxies but involvement never the less. your idea of continuation of hitler's "final solution" with regards to the jew is interesting but speculative. besides there's more then 1 reason the U.N. approved them getting their own country. not all of it was good will. i think despite your drawn out history lesson and somewhat revisionist interpretation my point is simple, meddling in affairs of others has created havoc. and at no time in history was MEDDLING so prevalent then in the cold war. whether it was the truman doctrine, nato, warsaw, cyprus, central america, middle east, afghanistan, se asia, south america or europe etc. point being every region was part of the two ideologies sphere of influence. mullahs or not. who were the biggest proliferaters of weapons. don't look at this from a micro perspective but in terms of "SPHERE of INFLUENCE" not everything required ideological compatibility, just compliance with one or the others will. Oil was the bargaining tool that the middle east played and its one they still play today. however the complexity is much bigger than one issue.

[Gobbla2001]

a person that I once knew, who used to be in law enforcement had a 9 mil... sold it to a guy "under the table" so to speak... I'm pretty sure that isn't the only time it has happened... illegal guns are everywhere...

yes, this one may have been legal, but most are not...

my knife is legal, but if I decide to gut 30 people with it are we gunna try and take those away? I mean, c'mon, you don't really need them... I mean hell, do we REALLY need our food to be skinned and quartered up??? tough chit, put that sucker on the fire whole... aint gunna hurt to eat it that way 'long as it's cooked...

No more knives...

while we're at it we should outlaw cliffs... too easy to push someone over it and claim it was an accident...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
Here's another thought for you, Keith. There is no way on earth to shut down the black market. A black market would NOT be created if guns were outlawed in the US. It already exists worldwide. There are over 100 nations on this planet that manufacture and dispense weaponry. Even the police you are fond of expecting perfection from have been known to contribute to the black market effort. Officers placed in charge of destroying confiscated weapons have instead sold them on the black market(Trust me on this). Where there is a buck to be made, someone will find a way.

you know i've heard some use a eerily similar argument for legalization of drugs!

[shankbear]

The biggest terrorist killings in this country happened with diesel, fertilizer and boxcutters.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
you know i've heard some use a eerily similar argument for legalization of drugs!

yah, cept I can't point a joint at someone and defend my house...

[Gobbla2001]

"I got a bong... you better get back mister or I'll use it"

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by shankbear
The biggest terrorist killings in this country happened with diesel, fertilizer and boxcutters. more of a testament to their ingenuity, guns vs truckload of explosive. gun vs 767 flying 500 mph full of fuel hitting a building

[DU_stud04]

everyone should just get a lion.

[Gobbla2001]

"you better think twice about bustin' through my door, or I'll snort a line of coke, I guarantee it"

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
yah, cept I can't point a joint at someone and defend my house... yup but how many people use drugs legal or not! and im not arguing defense, just comparing arguments

[smustangs]

Originally posted by DU_stud04
everyone should just get a lion.

cuz anyone can get past a dog but no one messes w/ a lion

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
"you better think twice about bustin' through my door, or I'll snort a line of coke, I guarantee it" sweet, you can use your gun license to snort it! ;)

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
yup but how many people use drugs legal or not! and im not arguing defense, just comparing arguments

we've got apples... and we've got oranges... you sir are talkin' bananas...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
we've got apples... and we've got oranges... you sir are talkin' bananas... you sir are looking down a narrow hall! you could replace a few words and just as easy fit in fighting drugs!

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
you know i've heard some use a eerily similar argument for legalization of drugs!

That's probably because they've heard me on my soapbox before and decided I'm a very persuasive fella.:D

Of course, I wasn't talking about drugs, they just figured if it works for one......

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
you sir are looking down a narrow hall! you could replace a few words and just as easy fit in fighting drugs!

well yah, I figured that one out on my own... but I can also say that a pen has a lot in common with a gun... both have been used to write history... but who are you gunna try to punch in the mouth??? Bob Dylan or Ted Nugent?

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
well yah, I figured that one out on my own... but I can also say that a pen has a lot in common with a gun... both have been used to write history... but who are you gunna try to punch in the mouth??? Bob Dylan or Ted Nugent? yeah but you know what they say about coined phrases they are for entertainment and budhists! lol

my ex.


There is no way on earth to shut down the drug market. A drug market would NOT be created if drugs were outlawed in the US. It already exists worldwide. There are over 100 nations on this planet that manufacture and dispense drugs. Even the police you are fond of expecting perfection from have been known to contribute to the drug market effort. Officers placed in charge of destroying confiscated drugs have instead sold them on the drug market(Trust me on this). Where there is a buck to be made, someone will find a way.

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
yeah but you know what they say about coined phrases they are for entertainment and budhists! lol


is someone preaching about coined phrases???

[Gobbla2001]

gun control to me means:

aiming... taking a deep breath and squeezing, not jerking/pulling...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
is someone preaching about coined phrases??? preaching or jesting? there is a difference! besides, i don't state an argument and then just put a coined phrase. lol i believe normally i state my position and a few facts or opinions. never said they weren't useful but in context

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
preaching or jesting? there is a difference! besides, i don't state an argument and then just put a coined phrase. lol i believe normally i state my position and a few facts or opinions. never said they weren't useful but in context

okay, we'll take jesting...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
gun control to me means:

aiming... taking a deep breath and squeezing, not jerking/pulling... come on you know you do a lil jerking and pulling hahahaha :D :D j/k w/ya gobbla. hey your opinion is cool with me, i have 5 guns myself. and any bastard who enters my house with mal intent is getting two in the chest and one in the head. depending how sleepy i am! lol its the mini bronsons who worry me

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
come on you know you do a lil jerking and pulling hahahaha :D :D j/k w/ya gobbla. hey your opinion is cool with me, i have 5 guns myself. and any bastard who enters my house with mal intent is getting two in the chest and one in the head.

rock on!!!

click click boom

I just have five grenades...

[mustang04]

Keith... i wish you could meet the families who were saved by owning a gun when someone broke into their house, look them in the eye, and say "you shouldn't have had that gun....you don't need it, your life doesn't depend on owning it"

i'm sry, but when i am a grown man and have kids of my own, you can bet your ass i'm gonna have a gun ready to blow the head off anyone who tries to break into my house and harm my family

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
rock on!!!

click click boom

I just have five grenades... haha yeah well, i can patch up a bullet hole, don't know about rebuilding me a new living room, would insurance cover that??? lol

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by mustang04
Keith... i wish you could meet the families who were saved by owning a gun when someone broke into their house, look them in the eye, and say "you shouldn't have had that gun....you don't need it, your life doesn't depend on owning it"

i'm sry, but when i am a grown man and have kids of my own, you can bet your ass i'm gonna have a gun ready to blow the head off anyone who tries to break into my house and harm my family your first para. is straight up melodramatic! lol i'm sure there are more families mourning because of a gun then thanking. however still not a reason not to own a gun. hell if my house is broken into or in any othe scenario, i want a fighting chance. its not that guns save lives, its just a shame we need them to take lives and protect ours. but, id never outlaw guns

[DDBooger]

.

[mustang04]

Originally posted by DDBooger
your first para. is straight up melodramatic! lol i'm sure there are more families mourning because of a gun then thanking. however still not a reason not to own a gun. hell if my house is broken into or in any othe scenario, i want a fighting chance. its not that guns save lives, its just a shame we need them to take lives and protect ours. but, id never outlaw guns

and i bet those mouring didn't have a gun to defend themselves with

i learned it Sociallogy last semester that some city (cant remember which one) was really bad about having car-jackers who would just run up to you and hold a gun up to you point-blank and either kill ya or throw ya out and steal your car...then they made it legal to use your gun and after the first incident where a thug tried holding a gun up to an old man...the old man shot and killed him and that crime rate went down DRASTICALLY after just that one incident

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by mustang04
and i bet those mouring didn't have a gun to defend themselves with

i learned it Sociallogy last semester that some city (cant remember which one) was really bad about having car-jackers who would just run up to you and hold a gun up to you point-blank and either kill ya or throw ya out and steal your car...then they made it legal to use your gun and after the first incident where a thug tried holding a gun up to an old man...the old man shot and killed him and that crime rate went down DRASTICALLY after just that one incident you should have learned in sociology about dramatic instance. what works in one place will not have the same effect everywhere. besides I don't care if I have a fully automatic weapon. all it takes is a 22 to my head and a option to nullify me or anyone. you know how many people carry guns in the hood and still get killed when jacked. its more of a matter of luck. having a gun does not ensure safety, being prepared or more willing to use it when attacked is logical. car jackins are really hard to defend. even muggings, unless you are dealing with a knife, or inexperienced assailant. if the mugger has a gun, at best you are 50/50. and that is if he has not aimed the gun.

[sinton66]

You simply can't argue the fact that the scene changes drastically when the criminals face intended victims that are armed.

Why didn't the VT gunman kick down the door of a Police Station and start shooting? Answer: It wasn't a "gun free" zone.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
You simply can't argue the fact that the scene changes drastically when the criminals face intended victims that are armed.

Why didn't the VT gunman kick down the door of a Police Station and start shooting? Answer: It wasn't a "gun free" zone. 1. it does improve odds. however, a assailant with intent will always have the upper hand unless they are inexperienced or not wielding a fire arm. im sure there are instances where someone could feel they are about to be assaulted, but im sure that is on rare occasion

[Gobbla2001]

Originally posted by DDBooger
unless they are inexperienced or

but couldn't you argue that most assailants are infact inexperienced??? I mean not too many people get away with it the first time unless they're David Copperfield or something...

[Gobbla2001]

why in the hell am I still in here talking? I need to go to sleep... next to my 270...

gnite folks...

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
but couldn't you argue that most assailants are infact inexperienced??? I mean not too many people get away with it the first time unless they're David Copperfield or something... bro, repeat offender is not a coined phrase ;) and actually yes the idiots are caught but a mask and a bad area is all you need to have a experienced criminal. the dumb***** are the convenience store robbers and those who rob old ladies for 10dollars in change. crack heads. you mess with a felon, you chances despite being armed are low. but again, I would rather be armed and killed then be helpless and forced to watched my loved ones assaulted. funny thing myself included, we all talk about what we'd do in these situations, but killing is not something MOST of us are comfortable with, on the other hand a felon has no compulsion to stop. in other words heaven forbid, until we are put in that situation we can never really know how we will respond. one could speculate based on your psychiatric make-up but still it would be speculation

[sinton66]

Originally posted by DDBooger
1. it does improve odds. however, a assailant with intent will always have the upper hand unless they are inexperienced or not wielding a fire arm. im sure there are instances where someone could feel they are about to be assaulted, but im sure that is on rare occasion

If ever I am confronted with an armed assailant, I'll take 50% any day of the week because I'm pretty familiar with firearms and a better shot than most.:D The point I was making is if the criminals know beforehand their victims are likely to be armed, there's a huge chance they won't try to victimize them.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by sinton66
If ever I am confronted with an armed assailant, I'll take 50% any day of the week because I'm pretty familiar with firearms and a better shot than most.:D The point I was making is if the criminals know beforehand their victims are likely to be armed, there's a huge chance they won't try to victimize them. i agree, its our rationale for owning nuclear weapons! mutual destruction ensures peace! ;) hahaha a lil macro perspective for ya! lol i must be getting tired! you guys are fun to talk to when the 4a board is dead. some of yall cry and whine but most are level headed no mater what side of the aisle they lay!(not a sexual connotation either ;))hahaha

[mustang04]

Originally posted by sinton66
If ever I am confronted with an armed assailant, I'll take 50% any day of the week because I'm pretty familiar with firearms and a better shot than most.:D The point I was making is if the criminals know beforehand their victims are likely to be armed, there's a huge chance they won't try to victimize them.

good call...and i'll have everyone know that within the next month i am gonna invest in a .45 pistol to have on my ranch in case i ever stumble across wild hogs

[big daddy russ]

Originally posted by DDBooger
1. it does improve odds...
That's all I need to know.

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by big daddy russ
That's all I need to know. haha
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w221/ally8888/lebowski.jpg

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
a person that I once knew, who used to be in law enforcement had a 9 mil... sold it to a guy "under the table" so to speak... I'm pretty sure that isn't the only time it has happened... illegal guns are everywhere...

yes, this one may have been legal, but most are not...

my knife is legal, but if I decide to gut 30 people with it are we gunna try and take those away? I mean, c'mon, you don't really need them... I mean hell, do we REALLY need our food to be skinned and quartered up??? tough chit, put that sucker on the fire whole... aint gunna hurt to eat it that way 'long as it's cooked...

No more knives...

while we're at it we should outlaw cliffs... too easy to push someone over it and claim it was an accident...

A private sale is private. no checks required.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by DDBooger
haha
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w221/ally8888/lebowski.jpg

ROFL! :clap:

[BILLYFRED0000]

Originally posted by pirate4state
ROFL! :clap:

THATS A GREAT PICTURE. UNLESS YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG END OF IT.

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by BILLYFRED0000
THATS A GREAT PICTURE. UNLESS YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG END OF IT. I just like the movie and that scene was classic.

"A world of pain"

[BILLYFRED0000]

That's for sure.

[Diocletian]

Originally posted by DDBooger
haha
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w221/ally8888/lebowski.jpg


Mark it a ZERO dude!!!!!




i love that movie, lol

[DDBooger]

Rest assured, WALTER SOBCHEK isn't for gun control! lol
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t154/19dsoldier/the_big_lebowski32.jpg

[Maroon87]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Rest assured, WALTER SOBCHEK isn't for gun control! lol
http://i159.photobucket.com/albums/t154/19dsoldier/the_big_lebowski32.jpg


"Over the line, Smokey!"